An Ode to TC Ryan…

At first I refrained from commenting on this entire situation, but the absurdity of it all became a bit too much. Here is a man, who has made serving the cause of liberty his first priority, and how do the people of the party repay him? To match this, I have picked a literary format equally as absurd – poetry – to express my thoughts on the subject.

Oh please, dear Republicans, continue to judge,
Denounce, declaim, and throw lots of fudge.
Of the bearded activist Ryan you do not approve,
His crimes and evils you seek to prove.
You dug up an old tale from twenty twelve,
To find this, very deep you had to delve.
The bearded Ryan just does not fit in
With all you fat, bald, old white men.
You wonder why the youth have no time for the GOP;
’tis because most of you need assistance to pee.
You do not care about violence more than you must,
But activist Ryan, his butt you must bust.
Not because he did anything exceedingly bad,
But his brand of real liberty makes you mad.
You claim to support freedom at every turn,
Yet when it is proposed, with anger you burn.
If Ryan had his way your religion will not be forced;
The Church and the State will finally be divorced.
This is the reason why activist Ryan is so opposed,
The movement against him is of mediocrity composed.
From all other things his past is a mere distraction,
Through which the partisans desire his extraction.
They wish also for the resignation of good Chairman Brogdon,
Instead of offering, like real Christians, a humble pardon.


The Economic Consequences of a “Free” Education

I am somewhat glad that Bernie Sanders is running in the election.  No, I don’t support him or any of his policies but, his candidacy at least will stimulate real discussion about real issues.  Unlike Hillary, who only seems to gin up talk about emails and how she is a woman.

Anyway, the latest issue is higher education.  Long story short, Sanders wants to provide a full four year education, gratis, to all qualifying students.

Sanders: “We live in a highly competitive global economy and, if our economy is to be strong, we need the best workforce in the world.”

Yes, we live in a very competitive global economy.  But, we also live in a very competitive domestic economy.

Now, what happens when a commodity becomes more abundant, but demand stays roughly the same?  The price of that commodity goes down.  Is not labor, even educated labor, little more than a commodity?

It is already hard enough for college graduates to find jobs.  What about adding thousands – no, hundreds of thousands – more?   It is something to have an increased number of college graduates.  But it means nothing if they cannot find a job or career worthy of their talent.

So I fear then, that this “investment” Sanders speaks of will be in vain.  If a private investor makes a bad investment, he accepts the consequences of that and with his own money.  Quite the contrary when a government makes an “investment” – it is done with other people’s money and the government will not have to accept any consequences of a mistake.

And the consequences will be far more reaching than this.

Not only will we have a glut of educated and qualified employees with no jobs for them to fill, we will also raise the cost of education higher.  Was it not government subsidy which prompted the colleges to raise the price further?  Do colleges not have an unending quest to squeeze out every dime they can?

And, thirdly, because of the increased amount of persons with Bachelor’s degrees, we might someday expect politicians to call for subsidized Masters degrees or even Doctorates degrees in order for us to become “more competitive.”  What will we say then?

Conclusion?  None of these people really understand the concept of competition.

Bush, Huckabee, and Media Deception

It is obvious that Jeb Bush could not win a general election.  He could never hope to get the independent vote, partly because of his name and the immensely negative connotation it has, and secondly, he is no different than the other moderate candidates that tried – and failed – in 2008 and 2012.  If it didn’t work then, why would it work now?

I cannot understand why any Republican of a sound mind would actively support Jeb Bush.  Maybe he has a few accomplishments they like.  Maybe he has said some things that they agree with.  But they have to know that he would fail miserably in a general election!

I was unfortunate enough to catch a bit of O’Rielley’s “No Spin Zone” evening of May 5th.  There he was, singing Bush’s praises!

Today, Mike Huckabee announced his candidacy.  Best known for his mediocrity both as Governor of Arkansas and a Fox News host.  Fox News was singing his praises too, but that is to be expected.

However, he is also being praised by the other side – by Yahoo politics of all places, who claims that he is more apt to understand the plight of the poor.  Well!  This flies in the face of his tax/spend happy time as Governor of Arkansas, and despite his small tax and government rhetoric, “the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee’s tenure.”*

So why are these candidates put forth by the media in such a way?

The goal is to paint candidates such as these as the ones with the chance, as the popular candidates, viz., the real conservatives such as Paul or Cruz which are being painted as extremists.

If a lie is repeated enough it will become truth. And the majority of right leaning voters who rely upon Fox News for their news and opinions will be swept up in this, and find themselves supporting candidates that they otherwise would not.


*  See here, a great article (albeit from 2008, still applies today) showing quite clearly that Huckabee will never be all that he is cracked up to be:

Bernie Sanders and the vain fight against inequality…

…Yesterday, Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders (you know, the man who does not own a comb) announced that he will seek the Democrat party nomination.

Sanders: “The rich become much richer, the level of income and wealth inequality has reached obscene and unimaginable levels.”

Sanders will no doubt make his name by fighting inequality.  This is a vain battle, destined only for failure.

There is inequality in nature.  It would be impossible for every being to have the same strength, ability or intelligence.  This is not an injustice, because it is naturally inevitable.  Natural inequality.

This natural inequality changes form and manifests itself in different ways as society and man advances – but it is always still there.

The Comte de Tracy: * “If, to banish from Society this natural inequality, we undertake to disregard natural property, and oppose ourselves to its necessary consequences, it would be in vain: for nothing which has its existence in Nature can be destroyed by art.”

It becomes quickly evident, after only a short consideration, that any war upon equality would be indeed in vain.  So why then, will it be carried out?

Because it is a great pretense for plunder.

Nothing new: take from the “greedy” billionaires and give to the hardworking, downtrodden poor.   We shall soon see, however, that such a system will only worsen this supposed inequality.

Everyone has an interest as both as a producer and a consumer.  Those who produce, must also consume.

It is then, in the best interest of the poor to have property and wealth – all property and wealth – be protected and not encroached upon.  From it, springs new wealth which benefits the entire economy.

If taken by government, that is the end of the wealth in question – it becomes sterile.  Even if it does reach it’s intended destination, the help of the poor (which is only possible after a few “incidental expenses”) it would be spent upon a good or a service, and that would be the end of it.  The economy – society – is scarcely better off than it was before.

Left in the hands of the business owners, the capitalists, the investors, in a word, the rich – it will be productive.  It will be invested and deployed in operations that will create new wealth.  Yes, it will benefit the rich, but at the same time, it will benefit the whole economy.

No, this is not “trickle down economics.”  Such an theory, if it is indeed a legitimate economic theory (which it isn’t) would be ridiculous – it would be absurd to say that commerce flows in one direction only.  No, for society is nothing but a series of exchanges, a continual network of mutually beneficial transactions – nothing more.

Apologies for the length of this entry – maybe it will make up for my not posting in awhile.  Comments always appreciated.


*From his Treatise on Political Economy (1817).