I take time to refute these responses like Tom's because of the apparent lack of thinking skills, even amongst the intelligent and highly educated. My responses in bold.
He writes: "[...government unfunded liabilities are] about $106 trillion. Other sources report this figure at less than half that amount..." And some sources quote a higher number, so I picked one in the middle.
"Of course the amount is huge and of course we don't have that kind of money on hand, but how useful is a statistic like this?" It's useful to the extent of demonstrating that the government has obligations for which it cannot pay. That seems simple.
"Here's an analogy. When we had our two children we incurred a liability of about $450,000: That's the money that we will spend for the first 18 years of their lives. Add in our mortgage over that period of time and our "liability" is more like $750,000. We don't have that kind of money. Should we sell the house and put the kids up for adoption? No. This imposing figure will be paid out over a long period of time with money that we haven't made yet. We’ll be OK."
Yes, you will be ok, because you actually pay towards the service of these obligations. Government does not, and in fact is increasing the obligation every day. And by the way, the mortgage is a secured loan, not an unfunded liability. Unless you are upside down in the loan, it will be paid off by the value of the property should you default.
But let's take the analogy from the realm of fantasyland and apply some real numbers. I'll even use the "half that amount" number, $53 trillion. Let's say the government creates a $53 trillion liability akin to a mortgage, and finances it at 5% over 50 years. The annual payment would be $2.88 trillion, which is more than the current annual budget of the government.
So would it be prudent for a hypothetical lender to make a loan to an organization, with a loan payment amount that exceeds the income of the organization?
"I think we can best address future liabilities by reducing health care costs...It's a great reason to work for meaningful health care reform." How exactly does increasing the government's unfunded liabilities by obligating itself to paying for health care LESSEN future liabilities? This is completely vapid.
Only a "true believer" would think such a thing makes sense.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Another example of liberal logic
My nemesis Tom wrote a response to my recent editorial about the huge unfunded liability of Goverment, which I will respond to in my next post:
In his Nov. 18 column, "Stop the Spending” Rich cited a figure called the "government unfunded liabilities" and stated that its about $106 trillion. Other sources report this figure at less than half that amount but its still a big, scary number. Where does it come?
As I understand it, the unfunded liability is money that’s been promised which we have not yet set aside. Its entitlement money (mostly Medicare) that could potentially be paid out to all eligible Americans for the rest of their lives. That’s a lot of people over a long period of time. Of course the amount is huge and of course we don't have that kind of money on hand, but how useful is a statistic like this?
Here's an analogy. When we had our two children we incurred a liability of about $450,000. That's the money that we will spend for the first 18 years of their lives. Add in our mortgage over that period of time and our "liability" is more like $750,000. We don't have that kind of money. Should we sell the house and put the kids up for adoption? No. This imposing figure will be paid out over a long period of time with money that we haven t made yet. We’ll be OK.
So am I saying that should we ignore ie government's unfunded liability? Absolutely not. I think we can best address “future liabilities” by reducing health care costs. Currently a single night in the hospital costs thousands of dollars. The intensive care units charge more than $25,000 per night. Nursing homes average $200 per day. Reducing these extortionate prices would really help bring government spending into line. It's a great reason to work for meaningful health care reform.
In his Nov. 18 column, "Stop the Spending” Rich cited a figure called the "government unfunded liabilities" and stated that its about $106 trillion. Other sources report this figure at less than half that amount but its still a big, scary number. Where does it come?
As I understand it, the unfunded liability is money that’s been promised which we have not yet set aside. Its entitlement money (mostly Medicare) that could potentially be paid out to all eligible Americans for the rest of their lives. That’s a lot of people over a long period of time. Of course the amount is huge and of course we don't have that kind of money on hand, but how useful is a statistic like this?
Here's an analogy. When we had our two children we incurred a liability of about $450,000. That's the money that we will spend for the first 18 years of their lives. Add in our mortgage over that period of time and our "liability" is more like $750,000. We don't have that kind of money. Should we sell the house and put the kids up for adoption? No. This imposing figure will be paid out over a long period of time with money that we haven t made yet. We’ll be OK.
So am I saying that should we ignore ie government's unfunded liability? Absolutely not. I think we can best address “future liabilities” by reducing health care costs. Currently a single night in the hospital costs thousands of dollars. The intensive care units charge more than $25,000 per night. Nursing homes average $200 per day. Reducing these extortionate prices would really help bring government spending into line. It's a great reason to work for meaningful health care reform.
Buy a fleece from Organizing for America, help fleece America
Here's a great Christmas gift for your favorite leftist. Hopefully the irony will not be lost. From Obama's website:
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
A response to "Stop the Spending"
Vern writes a response to my most recent column, posted on this blog on 11/17:
I have a few questions for Rich (Nov. 18 column, "Stop the Spending"). Disregarding the obscene size of the $106 trillion government unfunded liability, what is its composition? What portions purchase what essential things? What plans exist to reduce the sizes of the portions?
Should we not have hailed out GMC, Chrysler, AIG and others? Why not? Or should we have let them fail? What impact would that have had on the national economy and unemployment?
Should we not have spent stimulus money to get people back to work? What are the alternatives? Civilian Conservation Corps? Federal militia? Or what?
If we replace thriftless members of Congress, how will we keep their replacements from mutating into what we currently have once they get the scent of power and money?'
Your commentary lacked substance, and you took the same easy route as countless news media reporters and columnists - passionately, fluently criticize and condemn in hopes that the readers won't recognize you have nothing new to offer. just wanted you to know I recognized it, and I'll bet others did, too
I have a few questions for Rich (Nov. 18 column, "Stop the Spending"). Disregarding the obscene size of the $106 trillion government unfunded liability, what is its composition? What portions purchase what essential things? What plans exist to reduce the sizes of the portions?
Should we not have hailed out GMC, Chrysler, AIG and others? Why not? Or should we have let them fail? What impact would that have had on the national economy and unemployment?
Should we not have spent stimulus money to get people back to work? What are the alternatives? Civilian Conservation Corps? Federal militia? Or what?
If we replace thriftless members of Congress, how will we keep their replacements from mutating into what we currently have once they get the scent of power and money?'
Your commentary lacked substance, and you took the same easy route as countless news media reporters and columnists - passionately, fluently criticize and condemn in hopes that the readers won't recognize you have nothing new to offer. just wanted you to know I recognized it, and I'll bet others did, too
Monday, November 23, 2009
My response to Carl
I also referenced a letter to the editor in which Carl advocated limits on government and private enterprise.
--------------
Dear Carl,
It’s my turn to apologize for this delayed response, although in retrospect it is probably a good thing because of your intervening letter to the editor.
That letter may raise some eyebrows amongst your friends, I think. Any acknowledgement that government needs to restrained automatically classifies you as an right wing extremist. ;) I know you tried to mitigate it with an obligatory shot across the bow of big business, but you may not realize that you committed a cardinal sin that cannot be mitigated.
I’m only half-joking with you. I personally found your letter to the editor to be balanced and nicely articulated. May I say, though, that if government can be properly restrained and properly delineated as you suggested, the excesses of big business will also be solved.
I say that because big business exits the realm of capitalism when it lobbies government for favors. But if government could be restrained and returned back to its constitutional boundaries, then big business (as well as any other lobbyists) would have very little to influence. If government did not have the power to manipulate society and the economy with targeted taxation/tax breaks, favorable treatment, or sweetheart legislation, then big business would simply walk away from it.
Turning to your response of 10/23/09, you write, “I favor government programs in some cases (as in the case of health care).” Tying in with the above discussion, another reason I oppose national health care is that it gives government even more power, which in turn increases its susceptibility to external pressures like lobbying.
You wrote, “I do not share your faith in capitalism. Capitalism is just another flawed (and unsustainable) economic system; it works for people who are gifted entrepreneurs and business people, but everyone's gifts do not lie in those areas.” I need to be as clear as I can be. Capitalism is the legal, voluntary exchange of value. That makes everyone a capitalist, even Marxists and communists. Everyone engages in the exchange of value. It isn’t a faith in capitalism, it is faith in people going about the private pursuits of their daily lives.
Capitalism is not the process by which a select few people get rich, it is the process by which society functions. Some people are very good at coming up with good ideas or desirable products that a them a lot of money as others engage them in voluntary exchange. However, making a lot of money is not a feature of superior skills in capitalism, it is only one of many possible outcomes of capitalism in a free society.
“Some people have to do the world's work, and these people often feel the brunt of capitalism.” No, no, no. 1) People who get rich in capitalism ARE working. 2) people “doing the world’s work” are engaging in voluntary exchange (working for money) and as such are capitalists themselves. 3) There is no “brunt” to feel in capitalism, there is only the risks and rewards of living life.
“Capitalism coupled with our culture of radical libertarian individualism has resulted in real suffering for some people in this country…” Capitalism - people freely associating for mutual benefit – is a positive thing. I have never, ever seen “radical libertarian individualism.” I have only seen big government meddling; meddling which destroys lives and plays favorites. Government permeates every facet of society and influences every exchange we engage in. I wonder what ““radical libertarian individualism” you could possibly talking about.
“My preference is communalism, that is, living in a voluntary association known as the community where we look out for each other and help each other out.” Communalism is intrinsically at odds with powerful centralized government. Those “voluntary associations” result from human relationships, not government programs. Government destroys relationships and interpersonal obligations, substituting programs funded with dollars coerced from us. I would say that communalism is a founding concept (states’ rights as opposed to powerful, oppressive central government).
“I really do not think the two party system works-some of our Founding Fathers were suspicious of parties (or "factions") and rightly so.” I agree, which is why I have never said I’m a Republican, I have never joined a political party, and I have never made a political donation to a party.
“I favor a NO party system, maybe a Constitutional amendment stating that every candidate for political office has to run as an independent pledged to solve our common problems…” I would disagree to the extent that such a system might obscure the ability for the people to discern what a candidate believes and what that candidate would do once in office. But if the result was to break the hold that political parties hold over their candidates (chairmanships, campaign dollars, etc.), I would definitely agree to that.
“Private donations to political campaigns (THE corrupting force in American politics) should be banned…” No, POWER, the ability to spend other peoples’ money with impunity, is the corrupting influence (i.e. lobbyists). There would be no multi-million dollar campaigns if the resulting elections sent people to Washington without the power to allocate tax dollars.
“…I most believe in the Politics of the Third Way-synergy-where debating and pooling our ideas results in solutions that are even better than what we bring to the table.” I understand your desire for less acrimony and more cooperation, but unfortunately there can be no “can’t-we-just-get-along” government. People always have been divided by opinion, world view, politics, religion, neighborhoods, and any other topic you could name. This actually is the way it should be (free association). Our ideological diversity is much more a strength than the diversity of our pigment levels. We should debate ideas. The alternative is forced compliance from a top-down authority, which I don’t thing you are advocating, are you?
“I should also add that neither conservatives or liberals (if your figures are accurate) tithe.” Tithing is what God requires of people who choose to be obedient to Him. By His mercy I have been blessed, and one of my acts of worship is to obey Him and give to others. I would only hold people of faith to a tithing requirement, and then it still is a matter of conscience rather than government forcing people to part with their money.
“Finally, what is insurance? It is paying my money for someone else to use. Is this socialism? No, but it operates on a similar principle…” No. Insurance is a contractual agreement voluntarily engaged. It has nothing to do with socialism on any level. Things of value are exchanged without coercion. It is a private, legal transaction for mutual benefit.
“…I think it is reprehensible that health insurance companies can drop coverage or deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions.” These apocryphal stories of abuse are frequently trotted out, and they certainly do happen, but I don’t think they are as common as insurance company critics suggest. However, regarding pre-existing conditions, I think they ought to be denied. Or do you think you should be able to buy car insurance the day after a crash? Do you think you should be issued a life insurance policy after dying? A pre-existing condition has a 100% probability of loss, so it violates the one of the primary principles of insurance: A loss must be unexpected.
“Moreover, I think it is criminal; it is swindling.” Like I have already said, there are laws against criminal behavior. So yes, I agree. Prosecute them every time it happens.
“Maybe single-payer is not the way we should go, but we haven't even had an honest vetting of that option.” Yes we have. Oregon and Massachusetts. Medicare. CHIP. H1N1 vaccination program. Every one a mess, subject to fraud, cost overruns, and inefficiency.
Well, this is a long letter in response. I look forward to your letter, should you send one.
--------------
Dear Carl,
It’s my turn to apologize for this delayed response, although in retrospect it is probably a good thing because of your intervening letter to the editor.
That letter may raise some eyebrows amongst your friends, I think. Any acknowledgement that government needs to restrained automatically classifies you as an right wing extremist. ;) I know you tried to mitigate it with an obligatory shot across the bow of big business, but you may not realize that you committed a cardinal sin that cannot be mitigated.
I’m only half-joking with you. I personally found your letter to the editor to be balanced and nicely articulated. May I say, though, that if government can be properly restrained and properly delineated as you suggested, the excesses of big business will also be solved.
I say that because big business exits the realm of capitalism when it lobbies government for favors. But if government could be restrained and returned back to its constitutional boundaries, then big business (as well as any other lobbyists) would have very little to influence. If government did not have the power to manipulate society and the economy with targeted taxation/tax breaks, favorable treatment, or sweetheart legislation, then big business would simply walk away from it.
Turning to your response of 10/23/09, you write, “I favor government programs in some cases (as in the case of health care).” Tying in with the above discussion, another reason I oppose national health care is that it gives government even more power, which in turn increases its susceptibility to external pressures like lobbying.
You wrote, “I do not share your faith in capitalism. Capitalism is just another flawed (and unsustainable) economic system; it works for people who are gifted entrepreneurs and business people, but everyone's gifts do not lie in those areas.” I need to be as clear as I can be. Capitalism is the legal, voluntary exchange of value. That makes everyone a capitalist, even Marxists and communists. Everyone engages in the exchange of value. It isn’t a faith in capitalism, it is faith in people going about the private pursuits of their daily lives.
Capitalism is not the process by which a select few people get rich, it is the process by which society functions. Some people are very good at coming up with good ideas or desirable products that a them a lot of money as others engage them in voluntary exchange. However, making a lot of money is not a feature of superior skills in capitalism, it is only one of many possible outcomes of capitalism in a free society.
“Some people have to do the world's work, and these people often feel the brunt of capitalism.” No, no, no. 1) People who get rich in capitalism ARE working. 2) people “doing the world’s work” are engaging in voluntary exchange (working for money) and as such are capitalists themselves. 3) There is no “brunt” to feel in capitalism, there is only the risks and rewards of living life.
“Capitalism coupled with our culture of radical libertarian individualism has resulted in real suffering for some people in this country…” Capitalism - people freely associating for mutual benefit – is a positive thing. I have never, ever seen “radical libertarian individualism.” I have only seen big government meddling; meddling which destroys lives and plays favorites. Government permeates every facet of society and influences every exchange we engage in. I wonder what ““radical libertarian individualism” you could possibly talking about.
“My preference is communalism, that is, living in a voluntary association known as the community where we look out for each other and help each other out.” Communalism is intrinsically at odds with powerful centralized government. Those “voluntary associations” result from human relationships, not government programs. Government destroys relationships and interpersonal obligations, substituting programs funded with dollars coerced from us. I would say that communalism is a founding concept (states’ rights as opposed to powerful, oppressive central government).
“I really do not think the two party system works-some of our Founding Fathers were suspicious of parties (or "factions") and rightly so.” I agree, which is why I have never said I’m a Republican, I have never joined a political party, and I have never made a political donation to a party.
“I favor a NO party system, maybe a Constitutional amendment stating that every candidate for political office has to run as an independent pledged to solve our common problems…” I would disagree to the extent that such a system might obscure the ability for the people to discern what a candidate believes and what that candidate would do once in office. But if the result was to break the hold that political parties hold over their candidates (chairmanships, campaign dollars, etc.), I would definitely agree to that.
“Private donations to political campaigns (THE corrupting force in American politics) should be banned…” No, POWER, the ability to spend other peoples’ money with impunity, is the corrupting influence (i.e. lobbyists). There would be no multi-million dollar campaigns if the resulting elections sent people to Washington without the power to allocate tax dollars.
“…I most believe in the Politics of the Third Way-synergy-where debating and pooling our ideas results in solutions that are even better than what we bring to the table.” I understand your desire for less acrimony and more cooperation, but unfortunately there can be no “can’t-we-just-get-along” government. People always have been divided by opinion, world view, politics, religion, neighborhoods, and any other topic you could name. This actually is the way it should be (free association). Our ideological diversity is much more a strength than the diversity of our pigment levels. We should debate ideas. The alternative is forced compliance from a top-down authority, which I don’t thing you are advocating, are you?
“I should also add that neither conservatives or liberals (if your figures are accurate) tithe.” Tithing is what God requires of people who choose to be obedient to Him. By His mercy I have been blessed, and one of my acts of worship is to obey Him and give to others. I would only hold people of faith to a tithing requirement, and then it still is a matter of conscience rather than government forcing people to part with their money.
“Finally, what is insurance? It is paying my money for someone else to use. Is this socialism? No, but it operates on a similar principle…” No. Insurance is a contractual agreement voluntarily engaged. It has nothing to do with socialism on any level. Things of value are exchanged without coercion. It is a private, legal transaction for mutual benefit.
“…I think it is reprehensible that health insurance companies can drop coverage or deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions.” These apocryphal stories of abuse are frequently trotted out, and they certainly do happen, but I don’t think they are as common as insurance company critics suggest. However, regarding pre-existing conditions, I think they ought to be denied. Or do you think you should be able to buy car insurance the day after a crash? Do you think you should be issued a life insurance policy after dying? A pre-existing condition has a 100% probability of loss, so it violates the one of the primary principles of insurance: A loss must be unexpected.
“Moreover, I think it is criminal; it is swindling.” Like I have already said, there are laws against criminal behavior. So yes, I agree. Prosecute them every time it happens.
“Maybe single-payer is not the way we should go, but we haven't even had an honest vetting of that option.” Yes we have. Oregon and Massachusetts. Medicare. CHIP. H1N1 vaccination program. Every one a mess, subject to fraud, cost overruns, and inefficiency.
Well, this is a long letter in response. I look forward to your letter, should you send one.
Another exchange of letters
A reader responded to my column:
Rich,
I am sorry I did not respond to your letter you sent awhile back. I didn't mean to be rude-I just couldn't get around to it. I should also say your points were well-taken and argued.
I may have liberal views, but there are some things I am concerned about: if I favor government programs in some cases (as in the case of health care), I also am concerned we don't get rid of social programs once they have outlived their usefulness. Ag subsidies, for instance. These support the system of industrial agriculture that have destroyed the small independent (family) farm, and the land and degraded the quality of our food supply and ruined our hopes for a truly ecologically, economically, and culturally sustainable agriculture in this country.
There should also be limits to government even though we do not agree on those limits. And, yes, the Constitution should be amended if it needs to reflect the times we live in without violating its basic integrity. One needed amendment: a land ethic, which should be second in importance to freedom of speech and religion, the central right from which all other rights extend. The Founding Fathers could never have anticipated the terrible abuse and damage we have done to the environment.
Sorry, but talk radio is downright venomous, especially since it reaches a much wider audience and inflames passions by demonizing liberals. It has done it’ part to divide our country, making it impossible to have a productive discussion on the critical issues of our time. We should be talking to one another rather than listening to talk radio, we might even learn something. I stopped going to peace rallies, because it seemed they were as much about Bush bashing (although I was very critical of the Bush Administration) as they were about, rightly, questioning the whole neo-con policy of pre-emptive war. I find liberals sometimes to be as arrogant and close-minded as true-believer conservatives.
Despite my liberal views, I subscribe to and am an avid reader of Imprimus, a conservative speech digest out of Hillsdale College. There, I encounter intelligent conservative discourse on a range of issues from respectable (mostly) academics, public intellectuals, historians, policy makers, foreign policy experts, think tank members (with the exception of featuring Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin-and I voiced my displeasure to them for including those two). I often do not buy their arguments, but I find the pieces stimulating and thought-provoking.
I do not share your faith in capitalism. Capitalism is just another flawed (and unsustainable) economic system; it works for people who are gifted entrepreneurs and business people, but everyone's gifts do not lie in those areas. Some people have to do the world's work, and these people often feel the brunt of capitalism. Capitalism coupled with our culture of radical libertarian individualism has resulted in real suffering for some people in this country, and it has done some real damage to the environment (as did Soviet communism-both systems are industrial economies that have been brutal to people and the land). My preference is communalism, that is, living in a voluntary association known as the community where we look out for each other and help each other out.
I really do not think the two party system works-some of our Founding Fathers were suspicious of parties (or "factions") and rightly so. I favor a NO party system, maybe a Constitutional amendment stating that every candidate for political office has to run as an independent pledged to solve our common problems, work with people who have other views, and uphold our Constitution. Private donations to political campaigns (THE corrupting force in American politics) should be banned-I would gladly have our taxes pay for political campaigns (to the extent that it gets the message out there and pays for travel and debates, etc.), which should be limited to a period extending from the day after Labor Day to the day before Election Day (anymore I anticipate every election season with dread). I refuse to donate to political campaigns because I oppose private donations and I am not afraid to say this when I am solicited. I do NOT belong to any political party.
The two party system, partisan politics are destroying or at least seriously damaging our country-no terrorist could do the damage that the two party system has done. Our country is nearly hopelessly divided.
Yes, I do believe in a post-ideological politics and I do point this out to my liberal friends. I see my own liberal views as something I bring to the table, but I most believe in the Politics of the Third Way-synergy-where debating and pooling our ideas results in solutions that are even better than what we bring to the table.
As far as making private donations to charity or to help people out-I do what I can within the scope of my limited resources-I haven't gotten exactly rich. I believe we each must do whatever we can to bring some goodness into the world. I should also add that neither conservatives or liberals (if your figures are accurate) tithe. Also lower income people give a higher percentage of their income than wealthy people.
Finally, what is insurance? It is paying my money for someone else to use. Is this socialism? No, but it operates on a similar principle and I think it is reprehensible that health insurance companies can drop coverage or deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. Moreover, I think it is criminal; it is swindling.
Canadians and Brits are baffled and dismayed by the way their healthcare systems are getting trashed in this country, especially the lies and propaganda and distortions we hear. They are actually reasonably satisfied with these systems, more than Americans are with theirs. We cannot get the truth about those systems in this country. Maybe single-payer is not the way we should go, but we haven't even had an honest vetting of that option.
The direction healthcare reform is now taking is going to prove disastrous, I think. Congrats on your new column. I'll look forward to reading it. I hope someday you can come around to being an advocate for the politics of the Third Way. Conservatism has its shortcomings, too, not just liberalism. I was not one of the people who applied to be a columnist-it's enough to get out that occasional letter to the editor!
Rich,
I am sorry I did not respond to your letter you sent awhile back. I didn't mean to be rude-I just couldn't get around to it. I should also say your points were well-taken and argued.
I may have liberal views, but there are some things I am concerned about: if I favor government programs in some cases (as in the case of health care), I also am concerned we don't get rid of social programs once they have outlived their usefulness. Ag subsidies, for instance. These support the system of industrial agriculture that have destroyed the small independent (family) farm, and the land and degraded the quality of our food supply and ruined our hopes for a truly ecologically, economically, and culturally sustainable agriculture in this country.
There should also be limits to government even though we do not agree on those limits. And, yes, the Constitution should be amended if it needs to reflect the times we live in without violating its basic integrity. One needed amendment: a land ethic, which should be second in importance to freedom of speech and religion, the central right from which all other rights extend. The Founding Fathers could never have anticipated the terrible abuse and damage we have done to the environment.
Sorry, but talk radio is downright venomous, especially since it reaches a much wider audience and inflames passions by demonizing liberals. It has done it’ part to divide our country, making it impossible to have a productive discussion on the critical issues of our time. We should be talking to one another rather than listening to talk radio, we might even learn something. I stopped going to peace rallies, because it seemed they were as much about Bush bashing (although I was very critical of the Bush Administration) as they were about, rightly, questioning the whole neo-con policy of pre-emptive war. I find liberals sometimes to be as arrogant and close-minded as true-believer conservatives.
Despite my liberal views, I subscribe to and am an avid reader of Imprimus, a conservative speech digest out of Hillsdale College. There, I encounter intelligent conservative discourse on a range of issues from respectable (mostly) academics, public intellectuals, historians, policy makers, foreign policy experts, think tank members (with the exception of featuring Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin-and I voiced my displeasure to them for including those two). I often do not buy their arguments, but I find the pieces stimulating and thought-provoking.
I do not share your faith in capitalism. Capitalism is just another flawed (and unsustainable) economic system; it works for people who are gifted entrepreneurs and business people, but everyone's gifts do not lie in those areas. Some people have to do the world's work, and these people often feel the brunt of capitalism. Capitalism coupled with our culture of radical libertarian individualism has resulted in real suffering for some people in this country, and it has done some real damage to the environment (as did Soviet communism-both systems are industrial economies that have been brutal to people and the land). My preference is communalism, that is, living in a voluntary association known as the community where we look out for each other and help each other out.
I really do not think the two party system works-some of our Founding Fathers were suspicious of parties (or "factions") and rightly so. I favor a NO party system, maybe a Constitutional amendment stating that every candidate for political office has to run as an independent pledged to solve our common problems, work with people who have other views, and uphold our Constitution. Private donations to political campaigns (THE corrupting force in American politics) should be banned-I would gladly have our taxes pay for political campaigns (to the extent that it gets the message out there and pays for travel and debates, etc.), which should be limited to a period extending from the day after Labor Day to the day before Election Day (anymore I anticipate every election season with dread). I refuse to donate to political campaigns because I oppose private donations and I am not afraid to say this when I am solicited. I do NOT belong to any political party.
The two party system, partisan politics are destroying or at least seriously damaging our country-no terrorist could do the damage that the two party system has done. Our country is nearly hopelessly divided.
Yes, I do believe in a post-ideological politics and I do point this out to my liberal friends. I see my own liberal views as something I bring to the table, but I most believe in the Politics of the Third Way-synergy-where debating and pooling our ideas results in solutions that are even better than what we bring to the table.
As far as making private donations to charity or to help people out-I do what I can within the scope of my limited resources-I haven't gotten exactly rich. I believe we each must do whatever we can to bring some goodness into the world. I should also add that neither conservatives or liberals (if your figures are accurate) tithe. Also lower income people give a higher percentage of their income than wealthy people.
Finally, what is insurance? It is paying my money for someone else to use. Is this socialism? No, but it operates on a similar principle and I think it is reprehensible that health insurance companies can drop coverage or deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. Moreover, I think it is criminal; it is swindling.
Canadians and Brits are baffled and dismayed by the way their healthcare systems are getting trashed in this country, especially the lies and propaganda and distortions we hear. They are actually reasonably satisfied with these systems, more than Americans are with theirs. We cannot get the truth about those systems in this country. Maybe single-payer is not the way we should go, but we haven't even had an honest vetting of that option.
The direction healthcare reform is now taking is going to prove disastrous, I think. Congrats on your new column. I'll look forward to reading it. I hope someday you can come around to being an advocate for the politics of the Third Way. Conservatism has its shortcomings, too, not just liberalism. I was not one of the people who applied to be a columnist-it's enough to get out that occasional letter to the editor!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Another intelligent leftist...
John wrote a letter to the editor refuting last month's column. His letter is first, my response is below it:
"I was extremely disappointed to read Rich's maiden column (Oct. 28). His writing reveals the same non-thought processes as those of Tamara Hall. Two examples: 'Only individuals can be compassionate; government can't.'
"Why not? Government is a reflection of the people (at least in my democracy), and if I am compassionate, then why cannot my representative government pass compassionate laws, for example those regarding handicapped individuals or the victims crimes or disasters?
"Hey, wait a minute. We’ve done that. Anyone who can use the public library (another government social program or access the Internet could discover these “compassionate” acts of government.
"'No social program has ever succeeded in solving, the problem for which it was created." Like the Food and Drug Administration? Which did not get rid of the sale of diseased meat, poisons posing as medicines, and misleading labeling? Like the GI bill, designed originally to provide educational opportunities for WW II veterans and reduce post-war unemployment. It didn’t work?
"Get out your history book. Like the Marshall Plan, to rebuild war-torn Europe and keep it from the communists? History book time again. Social Security, compassionately designed to provide retirement saving accounts for those without the resources to buy stocks and bonds. Hasn’t worked? Talk to your grandmother. Voting Rights Act.
"Do you know anything about the history of racial discrimination in our nation, and how effective this 1965 legislation was, and is, in providing social justice for people of color in the nation?
"Editor, are you not embarassed to provide a showplace for such ignorance in your publication? Please provide us with an intelligent and educated local conservative to share his or her opinons in the Chronicle."
-----------------
My response to John:
Dear John,
I read your recent letter with interest. I suppose it would easy for me to respond to you in a similar tone, but instead I choose to extend to you a higher degree of dignity and respect than you did to me.
I will give you credit for actually attempting a refutation of some of the things I wrote. It a rare event indeed when someone of your political persuasion actually addresses an issue raised by a conservative. Nevertheless, it didn’t take long for you to lapse into name-calling by questioning my intelligence, education, and calling me ignorant. Maybe such vitriol is common in your circle of friends, but I’ve been raised differently. It used to be that gentleman could disagree without personal attacks and character assassination (“ad hominem” I believe is the applicable phrase).
May I remind you of what I actually wrote regarding compassion? “Only individuals can be compassionate. Government can’t.” And the part you left out: “Compassion is a human virtue.” Now, these are not particularly controversial statements, your histrionics aside. I note the irony of the situation in that you insist on government compassion but extend no compassion to me. I am also surprised to note that you find my opinion on this matter to be a definitive indicator of my intelligence, or the lack thereof. May I make the obvious observation that you disagreeing with me does not make me ignorant?
You proceed to list some government activities you deem compassionate. And what is your standard of compassion? Surprise, it is a manifestation of humanity, instigated by individuals acting on their morality to pass laws and create programs. I guess you should feel free to anthropomorphize the resulting inanimate objects, i.e. the laws and programs passed by government, all you like. But sorry, that doesn’t impute human traits to them.
Your usage of the word “compassion” gradually morphs from intentions to results. Your equations: 1) If a program is intended to help people, that makes it compassionate; or 2) If a program ends up helping some people, then that is compassionate.
So I wonder, if a program intended to help people actually helps no one, is it still compassionate? Or if a program helps some but not others, perhaps you can tell me the percentage threshold that needs to be crossed before the program can be called compassionate and not damaging?
It seems to me that if anyone is hurt it fails the compassion test. For how could it be compassionate to hurt someone, unless you are willing to accept some amount of collateral damage in pursuit of an acceptable statistical outcome? I would pay real money to hear your rationalization of this.
The “compassion” of a government program is not simply that some people are helped, or that the program was intended to help people. If you accept that some people are helped, you are also required to accept that some people are simultaneously hurt. If a government social program gets the credit for the resulting good, it also must receive the blame for bad outcomes as well.
And before your definitions shift further to suit your aims, perhaps I could pin you down as to how it might be compassionate to force some Americans to pay for the needs of others? Could you explain where the compassion is in that equation? Or even constitutional? Stated clearly, for a stupid person like me?
I am distressed to observe the goal posts meandering even farther away as you provide your next rebuttal. It seems like a simple request. All I want is an example of a government social program that solved the problem. SOLVED the problem. One will do.
The FDA: It did not “get rid” of the sale of diseased meat or poisons or anything else. One tiny example among many is from http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/sep1604fda.html: “A nationwide survey by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that risk factors for foodborne disease, such as inadequate handwashing by workers and keeping food at unsafe temperatures, are very common in the nation's restaurants, retail stores, and institutional food services.” Well, I guess that sorta means that the problem is solved?
The GI bill: Once again some people were helped. Aside from the fact that the program was conceived as a sort of quid pro quo for sacrificial services rendered to the country, are there other effects we can observe? Well, yes. Government unbalanced the cost-of-college equation by providing free college to some of its citizens. College, being the elite institution it is, has always been fairly expensive. But the GI bill gave access to a group of people who may not have attended college otherwise, which increased demand.
When demand increases and supply doesn’t, prices increase. This law of supply and demand may be a new idea for you. In addition, we taxpayers pay for GIs to go to college, but some taxpayers (i.e., those who go to college without the GI bill) pay twice, once through their taxes, and again for the increased cost of their education.
So it is possible to claim that it worked in some fashion. We might even go so far as to consider it successful on some level. But that wasn’t my criteria. I wonder if I can wrestle the goal posts back into position. The GI bill was not a social program created to solve a problem.
The Marshall Plan: Maybe you could explain how rebuilding Europe after WWII might be considered a social program? I thought people on the Left didn't like imperialist actions like this. And you are in favor of fighting communism? Shh. Better not let your leftist friends know. And by the way, what problem in society did it solve again?
Social Security: What social problem has it solved? Our seniors are now living the lifestyles they deserve? They don’t have to choose between food and medicine? Never mind that it’s going bankrupt. Pay no attention that the Social Security Trust Fund empty. It’s working!
Oh, I should mention that SS didn’t create savings accounts for anyone. SS is a Ponzi scheme. It is a tax levied on workers’ income, the proceeds of which are used to pay benefits to retirees and disabled folks. Any money not used is put in the Trust Fund, after which the government puts bonds (IOUs) in and spends the proceeds. SS is a wealth transfer program, a pyramid that can last only as long as those paying in money don’t starting wanting some of it back in too large of numbers.
Voting Rights Act: Where, exactly, is the social program? Who is getting money from it? What line item in the budget is it? The Voting Rights Act is legislation, not a social program. I think you knew that. Regardless, I will note for the record that you won’t find me opposing sensible legislation that rights a wrong.
Racial Discrimination: Indeed, racism was and is a problem. Tell me what social program was created to solve it, and tell me also when discrimination was solved. Jesse Jackson might be surprised to know this.
In conclusion, part of the reason I am writing is to establish dialogue with you so that we might understand each other, for clearly you do not understand my position. I am also extending the opportunity for you to try and name for me a government social program which solved the problem for which it was created.
If you want, you can try to re-argue your case for the compassion of inanimate objects as well (“wow, that stop sign saved my life. I’m glad it was so compassionate!”). You probably won’t change my untutored mind.
I am a reasonable man. I am expecting that you are too. Your response, should you write one, will tell me for sure.
"I was extremely disappointed to read Rich's maiden column (Oct. 28). His writing reveals the same non-thought processes as those of Tamara Hall. Two examples: 'Only individuals can be compassionate; government can't.'
"Why not? Government is a reflection of the people (at least in my democracy), and if I am compassionate, then why cannot my representative government pass compassionate laws, for example those regarding handicapped individuals or the victims crimes or disasters?
"Hey, wait a minute. We’ve done that. Anyone who can use the public library (another government social program or access the Internet could discover these “compassionate” acts of government.
"'No social program has ever succeeded in solving, the problem for which it was created." Like the Food and Drug Administration? Which did not get rid of the sale of diseased meat, poisons posing as medicines, and misleading labeling? Like the GI bill, designed originally to provide educational opportunities for WW II veterans and reduce post-war unemployment. It didn’t work?
"Get out your history book. Like the Marshall Plan, to rebuild war-torn Europe and keep it from the communists? History book time again. Social Security, compassionately designed to provide retirement saving accounts for those without the resources to buy stocks and bonds. Hasn’t worked? Talk to your grandmother. Voting Rights Act.
"Do you know anything about the history of racial discrimination in our nation, and how effective this 1965 legislation was, and is, in providing social justice for people of color in the nation?
"Editor, are you not embarassed to provide a showplace for such ignorance in your publication? Please provide us with an intelligent and educated local conservative to share his or her opinons in the Chronicle."
-----------------
My response to John:
Dear John,
I read your recent letter with interest. I suppose it would easy for me to respond to you in a similar tone, but instead I choose to extend to you a higher degree of dignity and respect than you did to me.
I will give you credit for actually attempting a refutation of some of the things I wrote. It a rare event indeed when someone of your political persuasion actually addresses an issue raised by a conservative. Nevertheless, it didn’t take long for you to lapse into name-calling by questioning my intelligence, education, and calling me ignorant. Maybe such vitriol is common in your circle of friends, but I’ve been raised differently. It used to be that gentleman could disagree without personal attacks and character assassination (“ad hominem” I believe is the applicable phrase).
May I remind you of what I actually wrote regarding compassion? “Only individuals can be compassionate. Government can’t.” And the part you left out: “Compassion is a human virtue.” Now, these are not particularly controversial statements, your histrionics aside. I note the irony of the situation in that you insist on government compassion but extend no compassion to me. I am also surprised to note that you find my opinion on this matter to be a definitive indicator of my intelligence, or the lack thereof. May I make the obvious observation that you disagreeing with me does not make me ignorant?
You proceed to list some government activities you deem compassionate. And what is your standard of compassion? Surprise, it is a manifestation of humanity, instigated by individuals acting on their morality to pass laws and create programs. I guess you should feel free to anthropomorphize the resulting inanimate objects, i.e. the laws and programs passed by government, all you like. But sorry, that doesn’t impute human traits to them.
Your usage of the word “compassion” gradually morphs from intentions to results. Your equations: 1) If a program is intended to help people, that makes it compassionate; or 2) If a program ends up helping some people, then that is compassionate.
So I wonder, if a program intended to help people actually helps no one, is it still compassionate? Or if a program helps some but not others, perhaps you can tell me the percentage threshold that needs to be crossed before the program can be called compassionate and not damaging?
It seems to me that if anyone is hurt it fails the compassion test. For how could it be compassionate to hurt someone, unless you are willing to accept some amount of collateral damage in pursuit of an acceptable statistical outcome? I would pay real money to hear your rationalization of this.
The “compassion” of a government program is not simply that some people are helped, or that the program was intended to help people. If you accept that some people are helped, you are also required to accept that some people are simultaneously hurt. If a government social program gets the credit for the resulting good, it also must receive the blame for bad outcomes as well.
And before your definitions shift further to suit your aims, perhaps I could pin you down as to how it might be compassionate to force some Americans to pay for the needs of others? Could you explain where the compassion is in that equation? Or even constitutional? Stated clearly, for a stupid person like me?
I am distressed to observe the goal posts meandering even farther away as you provide your next rebuttal. It seems like a simple request. All I want is an example of a government social program that solved the problem. SOLVED the problem. One will do.
The FDA: It did not “get rid” of the sale of diseased meat or poisons or anything else. One tiny example among many is from http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/sep1604fda.html: “A nationwide survey by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that risk factors for foodborne disease, such as inadequate handwashing by workers and keeping food at unsafe temperatures, are very common in the nation's restaurants, retail stores, and institutional food services.” Well, I guess that sorta means that the problem is solved?
The GI bill: Once again some people were helped. Aside from the fact that the program was conceived as a sort of quid pro quo for sacrificial services rendered to the country, are there other effects we can observe? Well, yes. Government unbalanced the cost-of-college equation by providing free college to some of its citizens. College, being the elite institution it is, has always been fairly expensive. But the GI bill gave access to a group of people who may not have attended college otherwise, which increased demand.
When demand increases and supply doesn’t, prices increase. This law of supply and demand may be a new idea for you. In addition, we taxpayers pay for GIs to go to college, but some taxpayers (i.e., those who go to college without the GI bill) pay twice, once through their taxes, and again for the increased cost of their education.
So it is possible to claim that it worked in some fashion. We might even go so far as to consider it successful on some level. But that wasn’t my criteria. I wonder if I can wrestle the goal posts back into position. The GI bill was not a social program created to solve a problem.
The Marshall Plan: Maybe you could explain how rebuilding Europe after WWII might be considered a social program? I thought people on the Left didn't like imperialist actions like this. And you are in favor of fighting communism? Shh. Better not let your leftist friends know. And by the way, what problem in society did it solve again?
Social Security: What social problem has it solved? Our seniors are now living the lifestyles they deserve? They don’t have to choose between food and medicine? Never mind that it’s going bankrupt. Pay no attention that the Social Security Trust Fund empty. It’s working!
Oh, I should mention that SS didn’t create savings accounts for anyone. SS is a Ponzi scheme. It is a tax levied on workers’ income, the proceeds of which are used to pay benefits to retirees and disabled folks. Any money not used is put in the Trust Fund, after which the government puts bonds (IOUs) in and spends the proceeds. SS is a wealth transfer program, a pyramid that can last only as long as those paying in money don’t starting wanting some of it back in too large of numbers.
Voting Rights Act: Where, exactly, is the social program? Who is getting money from it? What line item in the budget is it? The Voting Rights Act is legislation, not a social program. I think you knew that. Regardless, I will note for the record that you won’t find me opposing sensible legislation that rights a wrong.
Racial Discrimination: Indeed, racism was and is a problem. Tell me what social program was created to solve it, and tell me also when discrimination was solved. Jesse Jackson might be surprised to know this.
In conclusion, part of the reason I am writing is to establish dialogue with you so that we might understand each other, for clearly you do not understand my position. I am also extending the opportunity for you to try and name for me a government social program which solved the problem for which it was created.
If you want, you can try to re-argue your case for the compassion of inanimate objects as well (“wow, that stop sign saved my life. I’m glad it was so compassionate!”). You probably won’t change my untutored mind.
I am a reasonable man. I am expecting that you are too. Your response, should you write one, will tell me for sure.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Retirement advice
I have a good friend up in Kalispell, he and I got into the insurance business at the same time with the same company. We have traded advice over the years, compared notes on muscle cars and Corvettes, and we know some great places to get ribs.
Today he emailed me, asking for advice on his planned retirement next June. I have expanded here what I told him:
Wow, advice. I'm honored that you would ask me. Hmm, this is a tough time to retire, isn't it? I can only speak to what I read and what my gut tells me. Your retirement is probably pretty closely tied to the performance of the economy, I would think. This means the future performance of the stock market, the dollar vs. other currencies, real estate, and tax and debt policy are all on the table.
You have your company pension, your 401k, plus other investments, and residuals (?) from your business. If I recall, you've been doing some real estate development, and maybe you also took some cash from your home sale. And your wife has her retirement as well, and maybe some other stuff. Then there is S.S., such as it is.
Hypothetically, if you converted all of your retirement assets into monthly payments, what percentage of your current lifestyle will that cover? 80%? 125%? If most of your assets are performing at the inflation rate, that means that you will break even for the future. If the cost of living increases, you will come up short at some point. The question is, when does that point arrive? Your hypothetical monthly income would have to account for the cost of living 20 years from now.
Doom and gloom time. I have grave doubts about the financial condition of the country, and that will filter down to our finances. At this point I am predicting (assuming no change in government practices) that we are going to have a small bear market recovery, and then an even greater crash than the one we just experienced. This will suck trillions of dollars out of the stock market, business will close making their stock worth zero, banks will fold, and we will be faced with what has up to this point been a third-world problem - hyperinflation.
What happens when a loaf of bread costs $1000? Ugh. Those of us who are lucky enough to still have a job will be in a tough situation. But retired people will be worse off, and there might not even be jobs for them to re-enter the workforce. With government bankrupt, government bonds will be worth nothing (including the bonds that are in the Social Security Trust Fund), and no one will buy new debt. Certainly not the Chinese.
Government services will begin to fail; first things like road maintenance and national parks. Then visible public services like fire and police. The military will be cut, perhaps some branches even discontinued. After that, welfare is gone. Finally, Social Security. Our society, bought and paid for on credit (both personal and governmental), will collapse. And frankly, the rest of the world, which depends on our economic prosperity, will follow us down.
And the thing is, it will happen quickly. This collapse has been in the works for decades with all the wealth transfer programs, government meddling in the economy, the progressive income tax system, and many other things. Capitalism can bear up under a great amount of this kind of stuff, but it will ultimately shut down. And I think that the stimulus, government health care, and this insane keynesian monetary policy will be the straws that break the camel's back.
There is the possibility that we as a society will be transported back to the 1900s, the wild, wild west. Justice will come at the end of a gun. People will scrape out a living from what they can grow and what they can barter for. Cities will be desolate as services fail and people either die or get out. Rural areas will be overrun. There will be lawlessness, disease.
I know I'm painting a bleak picture, but this scenario is not all that unlikely. It may never happen at all. But let's say only half of it happens. That still will be bad news. Even here, I have no idea how to plan for it. There just isn't a financial plan or investment strategy that will make an ounce of difference.
If I were a militia-type, I guess I would hunker down and stockpile food and weapons. And maybe that isn't such a bad idea to some degree. But I don't think there is any scenario (in my opinion) where retirement is something I would consider.
I hear Costa Rica is nice.
Today he emailed me, asking for advice on his planned retirement next June. I have expanded here what I told him:
Wow, advice. I'm honored that you would ask me. Hmm, this is a tough time to retire, isn't it? I can only speak to what I read and what my gut tells me. Your retirement is probably pretty closely tied to the performance of the economy, I would think. This means the future performance of the stock market, the dollar vs. other currencies, real estate, and tax and debt policy are all on the table.
You have your company pension, your 401k, plus other investments, and residuals (?) from your business. If I recall, you've been doing some real estate development, and maybe you also took some cash from your home sale. And your wife has her retirement as well, and maybe some other stuff. Then there is S.S., such as it is.
Hypothetically, if you converted all of your retirement assets into monthly payments, what percentage of your current lifestyle will that cover? 80%? 125%? If most of your assets are performing at the inflation rate, that means that you will break even for the future. If the cost of living increases, you will come up short at some point. The question is, when does that point arrive? Your hypothetical monthly income would have to account for the cost of living 20 years from now.
Doom and gloom time. I have grave doubts about the financial condition of the country, and that will filter down to our finances. At this point I am predicting (assuming no change in government practices) that we are going to have a small bear market recovery, and then an even greater crash than the one we just experienced. This will suck trillions of dollars out of the stock market, business will close making their stock worth zero, banks will fold, and we will be faced with what has up to this point been a third-world problem - hyperinflation.
What happens when a loaf of bread costs $1000? Ugh. Those of us who are lucky enough to still have a job will be in a tough situation. But retired people will be worse off, and there might not even be jobs for them to re-enter the workforce. With government bankrupt, government bonds will be worth nothing (including the bonds that are in the Social Security Trust Fund), and no one will buy new debt. Certainly not the Chinese.
Government services will begin to fail; first things like road maintenance and national parks. Then visible public services like fire and police. The military will be cut, perhaps some branches even discontinued. After that, welfare is gone. Finally, Social Security. Our society, bought and paid for on credit (both personal and governmental), will collapse. And frankly, the rest of the world, which depends on our economic prosperity, will follow us down.
And the thing is, it will happen quickly. This collapse has been in the works for decades with all the wealth transfer programs, government meddling in the economy, the progressive income tax system, and many other things. Capitalism can bear up under a great amount of this kind of stuff, but it will ultimately shut down. And I think that the stimulus, government health care, and this insane keynesian monetary policy will be the straws that break the camel's back.
There is the possibility that we as a society will be transported back to the 1900s, the wild, wild west. Justice will come at the end of a gun. People will scrape out a living from what they can grow and what they can barter for. Cities will be desolate as services fail and people either die or get out. Rural areas will be overrun. There will be lawlessness, disease.
I know I'm painting a bleak picture, but this scenario is not all that unlikely. It may never happen at all. But let's say only half of it happens. That still will be bad news. Even here, I have no idea how to plan for it. There just isn't a financial plan or investment strategy that will make an ounce of difference.
If I were a militia-type, I guess I would hunker down and stockpile food and weapons. And maybe that isn't such a bad idea to some degree. But I don't think there is any scenario (in my opinion) where retirement is something I would consider.
I hear Costa Rica is nice.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Hang the rich
I recently saw a bumper sticker that read, "Hang the rich." Now if that isn't a glittering jewel of an example of ignorance, I don't know what is.
This kind of ignorance of capitalism approaches profound. One might wonder whom they expect will give them a job and sign their paychecks. Someone on welfare? A panhandler on a street corner, perhaps? We NEED the rich. They have the resources, they are willing to take the risk to form and fund businesses. If the risk pays off and the business becomes viable, it will eventually hire and pay people to work. And of course, it will make a profit.
So, what is capitalism? Capitalism is the legal, willing exchange of goods or services between parties. That's it. Any time an exchange of something valuable occurs in this context, capitalism has happened.
Capitalism is the natural state of Man as he conducts his life in interaction with others. This exchange has happened ever since one man has had interrelationships with another. It is not evil, it does not need to be controlled or curtailed. It only needs to be unleashed. It is not a system, it has its own natural rules, it can only operate in an environment of legality, and yes, morality, and because it is non-coercive, it always results in the satisfaction of all parties.
We must emphatically note that stealing, committing fraud, or harming someone are all illegal. Therefore they cannot be capitalism. Capitalism must be legal activity, so anything illegal is not capitalism. Monopolies, cheating, and selling inferior products are not features of capitalism. They are violations of capitalism.
Likewise, selling dangerous products has nothing to do with capitalism. If the goods are dangerous, there is no willing exchange. A true capitalist will be highly motivated to sell a safe product, because capitalism will not permit him to continue to sell his products otherwise.
In addition, safe, effective, well-designed products sell, while inferior, faulty products do not. Therefore, capitalism is self-correcting and self disciplining. Government intervention is ideally minimal. It ought to create the legal environment needed to engage in capitalism, but nothing else. Where government is friendly to capitalism, capitalism thrives.
There is no need for heavy-handed central planners. In fact, if we truly understand capitalism, we will immediately realize that oppressive central government is the enemy of liberty, and liberty facilitates capitalism. In an economic system as complex as ours, it is clear that the sheer magnitude of factors in play will elude the comprehension, let alone control, of the central planners. Big government can only fail here.
But even so, since capitalism is a natural facet of human activity it will function in any environment. Where government is hostile to capitalism or is malfunctioning or non-existent, capitalism still thrives, perhaps as a black market. Here, the disciplines required to engage in capitalism are enforced by the participants, since the legal environment of government is missing, antagonistic, or faulty.
Boiled down to its essence, capitalism is humanity. It uplifts, innovates, improves, and creates. It satisfies needs, it prospers the poor, it feeds the world. Capitalism is the most beneficial, moral, and life-affirming activity engaged in by man.
This kind of ignorance of capitalism approaches profound. One might wonder whom they expect will give them a job and sign their paychecks. Someone on welfare? A panhandler on a street corner, perhaps? We NEED the rich. They have the resources, they are willing to take the risk to form and fund businesses. If the risk pays off and the business becomes viable, it will eventually hire and pay people to work. And of course, it will make a profit.
So, what is capitalism? Capitalism is the legal, willing exchange of goods or services between parties. That's it. Any time an exchange of something valuable occurs in this context, capitalism has happened.
Capitalism is the natural state of Man as he conducts his life in interaction with others. This exchange has happened ever since one man has had interrelationships with another. It is not evil, it does not need to be controlled or curtailed. It only needs to be unleashed. It is not a system, it has its own natural rules, it can only operate in an environment of legality, and yes, morality, and because it is non-coercive, it always results in the satisfaction of all parties.
We must emphatically note that stealing, committing fraud, or harming someone are all illegal. Therefore they cannot be capitalism. Capitalism must be legal activity, so anything illegal is not capitalism. Monopolies, cheating, and selling inferior products are not features of capitalism. They are violations of capitalism.
Likewise, selling dangerous products has nothing to do with capitalism. If the goods are dangerous, there is no willing exchange. A true capitalist will be highly motivated to sell a safe product, because capitalism will not permit him to continue to sell his products otherwise.
In addition, safe, effective, well-designed products sell, while inferior, faulty products do not. Therefore, capitalism is self-correcting and self disciplining. Government intervention is ideally minimal. It ought to create the legal environment needed to engage in capitalism, but nothing else. Where government is friendly to capitalism, capitalism thrives.
There is no need for heavy-handed central planners. In fact, if we truly understand capitalism, we will immediately realize that oppressive central government is the enemy of liberty, and liberty facilitates capitalism. In an economic system as complex as ours, it is clear that the sheer magnitude of factors in play will elude the comprehension, let alone control, of the central planners. Big government can only fail here.
But even so, since capitalism is a natural facet of human activity it will function in any environment. Where government is hostile to capitalism or is malfunctioning or non-existent, capitalism still thrives, perhaps as a black market. Here, the disciplines required to engage in capitalism are enforced by the participants, since the legal environment of government is missing, antagonistic, or faulty.
Boiled down to its essence, capitalism is humanity. It uplifts, innovates, improves, and creates. It satisfies needs, it prospers the poor, it feeds the world. Capitalism is the most beneficial, moral, and life-affirming activity engaged in by man.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A report from Burning Man
My friend is part of a team that goes to the Burning Man gathering to engage in a radical form of ministry. Burning Man is a collection of spiritual misfits, often rejected by society and/or the mainstream Church. They frequently are an inquisitive type, often are searching for meaning; they are creative, outside-the-box people who gather in the Nevada desert once a year for this festival.
My friend and his group are courageous, innovative, and tender. They are meeting these people at their point of need, using their language and worldview to minister the love of the Father. Here is his report:
Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of...
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue.
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true
The refrains of a seventy year old song drift over us ageless like Spirit. I can't hold the center any longer. I'm crying. It's lunch at our Spirit Dream Camp in Burning Man's Black Rock City. Marjorie and Andrea (known as Ladybug and Firefly here) do an impromptu a capella version over our team and guests.
The spiritual weight hangs there, timeless like some mystic veil. Our Burner guests sit transfixed and red eyed. Gina who was gently lend into an actual conversation about Jesus weeps and weeps. She's close to the Door. She leaves copies of her music cd behind. We leave her with etherial weight to ponder. All in perfect process. In time. In season.
Six years of coming here and you'd think we'd get it. It's America but Ozzie and Harriet are gone. In their absence are drugs, a plethora of theme camp bars and sensuality and dark entities masquerading as goddesses. On the opposite pole there are good things here: humor,giving, amazing art and a hunger and realness that is free to give expression without judgement. Lisa Matshcek and I lead this outpost of light. We occupy our territory and cleanse and make a stand.
I beat my gift of a drum by our First Nations friends to each of the four directions. The light marks us and radiates out. In this spiritual climate people know how to see this light. As a team, we often wish the Christian gatherings we came out of could discern the same.
The tin men and women are coming even as we set up camp. "You're here again. We're glad we're camp neighbors" We're touched. We get out the oil can and dispel our own rusty thoughts and our chest cavities fill with desire to get to know those that love us. This year we take their gifts of hospitality on their turf - drinks, waffles, phone service and hair washing from Astral Headwash (an amazing experience in an itchy, dusty environment). We are learning to integrate.
They love us more. They send more people our way. They come and come. Ozzie and Harriet we are not but something far more mystical and safe - the fathers and mothers God meant us to be in this vacuum. The oil can reaches the jaw. We smile a lot here.
Friday afternoon. Lunch is over. There is a line out the door of our encounter tent. It's wicked hot. They are waiting. The tent flaps are parted. Darren hurriedly forms teams. We get people in our healing encounter groups of two or three. The waiting room is filled to capacity with people on the floor and there are still people out in the sun. Waiting. Waiting times go to an hour or more. They tell us they heard it is worth it. It's Burning Man. They have time. time is spent conversing or shifts occur where they practice their meditative style to prepare themselves. It's supernaturally cooler in temperature here. This is noted. The abstract tree of life sculpture (Andrea created) with leaves hanging down into our living space all add to the mystery, the expectation.
God is gifting us. We have higher level encounters as the week wears on. The Reiki master level people are here finding the true light. Really broken Dissociative Identity people fight hard internally and come to sit with us. I talk early on with a lesbian woman with horribly cut scarred arms. Rich is a chiropractic doctor in his forties heaving great sobs of release as collapses in my arms for a father's blessing. A few of the team compare notes and find dry coughing the demons out is common this year. Again, we find that the how to manuals do not exist here. Like John's desert we have to hear the voice of One.
Katie sits before Andrea, Julie and I. Two moms and a dad. She's a flower bruised. I pose a probing question to her "Are you concerned about growing old?" We ask her age. She floors us with "I'm 27" She looks 40. She confides "I feel I'm going to be disappointed with this encounter" Her mantra on life. Julie goes to OZ and says she looks like Dorothy. Julie takes her to the scene when all the others have gotten their gifts, she, without home, says "Is there anything in that bag for me?" We dig beyond the bag and ask permission to gently give her a portion of father identity blessing that will pool in the pock marks in the heart. The flower opens slowly and receives the rain as the mothers spirit whisper "This is home"
Somewhere over the rainbow. Bluebirds fly. Birds fly over the rainbow. Why then, why can't I?
Madison is in his twenties. He staggers off his bike as we are packing to leave. He can barely walk toward me. He says he's ready to commit to Jesus. He been coming to us for a couple of years and has won the hearts of many of us with his struggles and questions. Last year I did a fathers blessing on him. I think his internal circuits fried. We talk. I lead him in a prayer fitting him. He cries and cries, buried deep in my chest. My goofy flying saucer egg tee shirt beaming up a placid cow is covered in tears and snot. He eventually ends up on the dusty playa laughing and laughing in a new Spirit baptism.
My friend and his group are courageous, innovative, and tender. They are meeting these people at their point of need, using their language and worldview to minister the love of the Father. Here is his report:
Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of...
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue.
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true
The refrains of a seventy year old song drift over us ageless like Spirit. I can't hold the center any longer. I'm crying. It's lunch at our Spirit Dream Camp in Burning Man's Black Rock City. Marjorie and Andrea (known as Ladybug and Firefly here) do an impromptu a capella version over our team and guests.
The spiritual weight hangs there, timeless like some mystic veil. Our Burner guests sit transfixed and red eyed. Gina who was gently lend into an actual conversation about Jesus weeps and weeps. She's close to the Door. She leaves copies of her music cd behind. We leave her with etherial weight to ponder. All in perfect process. In time. In season.
Six years of coming here and you'd think we'd get it. It's America but Ozzie and Harriet are gone. In their absence are drugs, a plethora of theme camp bars and sensuality and dark entities masquerading as goddesses. On the opposite pole there are good things here: humor,giving, amazing art and a hunger and realness that is free to give expression without judgement. Lisa Matshcek and I lead this outpost of light. We occupy our territory and cleanse and make a stand.
I beat my gift of a drum by our First Nations friends to each of the four directions. The light marks us and radiates out. In this spiritual climate people know how to see this light. As a team, we often wish the Christian gatherings we came out of could discern the same.
The tin men and women are coming even as we set up camp. "You're here again. We're glad we're camp neighbors" We're touched. We get out the oil can and dispel our own rusty thoughts and our chest cavities fill with desire to get to know those that love us. This year we take their gifts of hospitality on their turf - drinks, waffles, phone service and hair washing from Astral Headwash (an amazing experience in an itchy, dusty environment). We are learning to integrate.
They love us more. They send more people our way. They come and come. Ozzie and Harriet we are not but something far more mystical and safe - the fathers and mothers God meant us to be in this vacuum. The oil can reaches the jaw. We smile a lot here.
Friday afternoon. Lunch is over. There is a line out the door of our encounter tent. It's wicked hot. They are waiting. The tent flaps are parted. Darren hurriedly forms teams. We get people in our healing encounter groups of two or three. The waiting room is filled to capacity with people on the floor and there are still people out in the sun. Waiting. Waiting times go to an hour or more. They tell us they heard it is worth it. It's Burning Man. They have time. time is spent conversing or shifts occur where they practice their meditative style to prepare themselves. It's supernaturally cooler in temperature here. This is noted. The abstract tree of life sculpture (Andrea created) with leaves hanging down into our living space all add to the mystery, the expectation.
God is gifting us. We have higher level encounters as the week wears on. The Reiki master level people are here finding the true light. Really broken Dissociative Identity people fight hard internally and come to sit with us. I talk early on with a lesbian woman with horribly cut scarred arms. Rich is a chiropractic doctor in his forties heaving great sobs of release as collapses in my arms for a father's blessing. A few of the team compare notes and find dry coughing the demons out is common this year. Again, we find that the how to manuals do not exist here. Like John's desert we have to hear the voice of One.
Katie sits before Andrea, Julie and I. Two moms and a dad. She's a flower bruised. I pose a probing question to her "Are you concerned about growing old?" We ask her age. She floors us with "I'm 27" She looks 40. She confides "I feel I'm going to be disappointed with this encounter" Her mantra on life. Julie goes to OZ and says she looks like Dorothy. Julie takes her to the scene when all the others have gotten their gifts, she, without home, says "Is there anything in that bag for me?" We dig beyond the bag and ask permission to gently give her a portion of father identity blessing that will pool in the pock marks in the heart. The flower opens slowly and receives the rain as the mothers spirit whisper "This is home"
Somewhere over the rainbow. Bluebirds fly. Birds fly over the rainbow. Why then, why can't I?
Madison is in his twenties. He staggers off his bike as we are packing to leave. He can barely walk toward me. He says he's ready to commit to Jesus. He been coming to us for a couple of years and has won the hearts of many of us with his struggles and questions. Last year I did a fathers blessing on him. I think his internal circuits fried. We talk. I lead him in a prayer fitting him. He cries and cries, buried deep in my chest. My goofy flying saucer egg tee shirt beaming up a placid cow is covered in tears and snot. He eventually ends up on the dusty playa laughing and laughing in a new Spirit baptism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)