Wednesday, September 14, 2011

On foreign perspective…

Consider if you will, Mexico, having a problem with someone in the US (Sheriff Joe Arpio, notorious on immigration, for example), and to deal with their problem, the Mexican military began shooting rockets into Arizona, killing some US citizens while destroying US private property and infrastructure. On top of that, as the Mexican military continued to step up their attacks on trying to get Arpio, began building bases, enforcing their legal systems in suburbs of Phoenix. This would be a foreign country initiating attacks upon US soil, targeting a US citizen while taking over US land. Who’d be pissed at Mexico?

Now, let’s add to the aforementioned, with the Mexican military’s desire to get Arpio’s network of like-minded sheriffs, began expanding their range of attacks and the number of bases, including taking over Mt. Rushmore, the Alamo, and the Washington and Lincoln monuments. Think more would be pissed at Mexico?

Switch it around, and that would be the US in various areas in the world. Some areas welcome our presence, but some do not: a foreign power coming into and taking over one’s country (therefore their sovereignty), causing the loss of life and property.

We in the US have our first amendment, so how would we like a theocracy imposed whether it was by some Iranian mullahs who used force to impose Sharia law, or some Roman priests to impose laws based from the Old Testament? While trying to dismantle constitutional protection and Sharia was being preached from the Washington monument, or Old Testament rules were being preached from Mt. Rushmore and that from these foreign sources called for ‘moving beyond’ the existing cultural belief structures, again who’d be pissed?

Regardless of an objective value of a culture, using force to impose change increases fundamentalist resistance as that is the culture’s assertion of its tradition, led by the most ardent of its adherents. Someone is going to be pissed, try and garner support and raise that support against the perceived threat based on how the cultural values are perceived.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

On Regulations

Regulations are the requirements to do business, and there are always regulations. The question is: who creates the regulations?—the market or the State.

Market-created regulations, first and foremost, are voluntary. Not only are market-created regulations voluntary, but they are also amorphous. Being voluntary and amorphous, individuals (those involved in a transaction) may interact as they see fit. This applies to businesses as large multinational corporations, to kids selling lemonade on a front yard, and their customers; if you don't like how the product is processed, thinking it is unsanitary, such as using not cleanly processed lettuce in hundreds of restaurants, or a dirty lemonade pitcher, any individual may decide to not purchase the product. However, if those concerns are addressed (and quickly addressed from decreasing market share), patronage may return. If there wasn’t enough to warrant a concern, patronage wouldn’t have stopped.

State-created regulations, first and foremost, are involuntary. What is it to blend the involuntary when mixed with the authority of the State?—the removal of choice with legal punishment and all that entails. With State-created regulations, the individuals who actually want to do business with one another are of a secondary concern to what the State will first allow. Want to get a specific style of hair braid from the only beautician who knows how to do that style (Jestina Clayton*)? Without the proper State-sanctioned license for the beautician, it’s not allowed. Want to buy that glass of lemonade?—the child didn’t get the license to sell the lemonade, so they’ve been shut-down by the threat of a fine. Patronize the license-less beautician, and fines will follow.

Market-created regulations just mean there will be no transaction unless terms have been agreed upon; if terms have not been agreed upon, then from mutual agreement, there will be no transaction from disagreed upon acceptable terms. State-created regulations mean that permissions must be sought and approved by governmental bureaucracy. If those permissions haven’t been given, to continue means instead of license fees for permission to act, there will be fines to be paid in punishment for acting without permission – refuse to pay the fines, and one goes to jail.

Let’s expand upon the aforementioned on something like wages; they can be regulated by the market, or by the State. Market-regulated wages would be dependent on the context. The market is the King of context. If there is a high demand but there were too many workers, the wages would be lower, but more would be employed. While if the demand was still high but if there were too few workers, the wages would be higher and the best would be employed. If the demand was low, then the wages could be lowered to hire some to perform the less demanded work.

State-regulated wages requires a minimum wage to be offered, and sometimes a cap on what can be offered. If there was a high demand with many people, but with the higher wage dictated by the State, then there would be fewer employed for there is still only so much that the work justifies in wages, so the fewer employees would earn some more wages, but there will be higher overall unemployment. If there was a lower demand, then an employer would skip hiring altogether for the hiring wouldn’t pay for itself, or be profitable. (Wages and prices will be another article).

Market-created regulations follow economics: an individual’s incentive mixed with limited resources. A well-funded, established businessman may splurge for a luxury work vehicle to be part of his image, while one just starting may buy a used car, emphasizing practicality. Both may be able to buy the expensive vehicle, but the recently-started businessman would decide funds would be better spent on other work expenses instead of just one car, especially primarily for image. More on context with incentives and limited resources: the family of six needs a different vehicle than a bachelor, and both have only so much to pay for a car while needing to also pay for other expenses relevant to their lives. To continue, a brooch may just be a trinket to one, but an heirloom with high subjective value to a family member. A can of SPAM may be repulsive and not worth a dime to one accustomed to caviar as they live in luxury, but that same one who stranded and starving may find the SPAM – their only source of nutrition – as worth hundreds of dollars at that time. At the same time, one who likes SPAM may not be interested in caviar at any dollar amount, until it is the only source of nutrition. Again, the market is the King of context.

State-created regulations are laws. Laws are mandates on what must be done, how, and punishments for not doing things according to law: proscriptions and prescriptions, blended. When laws are introduced into the market, aside from rights violations, such as requirements for licenses, subsidies, quotas or ‘sin’ taxes, it is artifice introduced into market. All the aforementioned false-market effects are created for a reason, to help some one, or sector. Help them do what?—get an advantage in some way: help them with something or prevent competition doing something. Before the artifice-laws were created, more were on equal footing with opportunity, but afterward, the established sets up assists (e.g. subsidies) for themselves, or barriers (e.g. licensing fees) for competitors. Through the force and manipulation of the State, regulations prop up that which isn’t worthy, while putting at a disadvantage that which is otherwise worthy. An extension of this artifice is that what the market normally would deny because it wouldn’t be practical or desired, gets a false foothold in the market, such as green energy, high-speed rail and ethanol. All of this artifice is done by ‘investment’ by the State with someone else’s (the taxpayer) money being handed out – handed out by those not directly in the transaction of the buyer or seller. (Each of these have their own market effects).

State-created regulations allow true monopolies, prevent competition and last as long as the law remains, across the area the law affects. Market-created regulations do not prevent competition, and last only as long as there isn’t a better option available in a given area. It is the difference between the post office and a grocer who may be replaced by a new grocer offering better product for better prices, if the first doesn’t improve what they offer.

Lastly, we’ll look at regulations dissuading innovation. Regulations that were designed, in part to ‘protect’ us, (also to protect the vested interest of those established in business and the State) stifle innovation. An example, if a bureaucrat decided what needed to be added in order to ensure ‘safety’ the Wright brothers never would have flown, but because they planned, worked and took their own risks, they, and with what they started enabled all of us to fly.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Disingenuous comparisons

As a follow-up to the incendiary language issue, there comes the issue that Bob Beckel displayed, and that is 'name-calling.'

Hoffa Jr. made news recently with calling various Tea Party Republicans 'son-of-a-bitches.' Beckel equated Hoffa's name calling to whether one could call Obama a socialist, and when Bolling defended calling Obama a 'progressive socialist,' Beckel ranted about how wrong it was to use such a pejorative term (socialist).

This is a false comparison, for a socialist is a denotative term to reflect a set of beliefs and policies, while son-of-a-bitch is a connotative term that is impossible to reflect anything in a denotative manner outside of a canine, or genetic manipulation. Son-of-a-bitch is slang; socialist is not slang.

Where the disingenuous nature comes in is by comparing the two terms, it is an attempt to hide the beliefs and behaviors that denote the denotative term by linking it to the inflammatory connotation of the slang term.

Don't let those who try and make such a comparison get away with it. Defend your terms, and make them defend theirs.

Sunday, September 4, 2011

On making a point with incendiary language: a new modest proposal.

(I am not a member of the Tea Party, but some of the attacks on them are ridiculous. This is for the Tea Party, against the likes of Andre Carson’s ‘blacks to be hanging from a tree’, John Kerry and ‘literally wanting to cut the baby in half’, Maxine Waters wanting them to ‘go to Hell’, to generalized claims of hostage-taking, and being terrorists).

What is debt? Debt is the borrowing of wealth with the promise to pay the amount of borrowed wealth (principle) in addition to the interest for borrowing the wealth. The more debt, generally the more time it takes to pay it off; to pay for a car the term may be for a couple years, but for a house the term may be for a couple decades. The debt of the US was (supposedly) limited at 14.3 trillion, but has been increased.

How is debt paid off?—by work, and the more debt, the more work is needed to pay it off. Who pays the debt?—the ones who took out the loan. With individuals, the one issuing the loan gets payments from the one who borrowed with clearly defined payments and a limit based on the marketability of the borrower: one who can afford only a used car, won’t be loaned funds for a new car (unless some things are manipulated to counter the marketability). But, when it is the government taking out the loans, it is an ever-expanding IOU without clear terms, especially with who exactly pays who. A borrower from a bank remains the same; the government changes with each election. What doesn’t change is who ultimately pays the government’s debt. It is paid by the tax payers (businesses and individuals).

The debt limit has been increased. It has continually been added to for decades and all administrations, but it has increased dramatically the past decade (two administrations). For generations the idea of stopping spending has been passed on to the next generation while the current generation continues to add to the debt. It can only be increased for so long; only adding a drop at a time will cause a 55 gallon barrel to overflow eventually.

Tax businesses more and they raise their prices, so individuals are the ones in the long-run who have to pay. With the cost of everyday goods rising, individuals have less purchasing power. To follow the increase of doing business, existing businesses won’t expand and hire more while possibly laying-off some existing staff; new entrepreneurs have new regulations they have to meet, fees to pay, making starting another business unlikely. In these circumstances, it becomes more difficult to pay off the debt that has been accrued, let alone the extra added to the debt. There is less purchasing power, higher un-/under-employment, and less opportunity to earn or create wealth.

Now we come to the crux of the matter, and the point of this article.

With the weakening employment prospects along with the ever-expanding debt that has to be paid off, these modern-day politicians who keep wanting to raise the debt (and those who press the politicians to act as such), while making it more difficult for businesses to hire, are trying to rape your children. Rather, they are not directly trying to rape your children, but just set them up to be raped – to be pimped out as a sex-indentured servant/slave. Regular employment is less available, but ‘the oldest profession’ is still around and can be offered without any other resources than one’s body. So, the government with the barrel of a gun is setting your children to be shot in a different manner. Yes, Uncle Sam, the labor union leadership, the congressional black caucus, as well as these entitlement-seeking groups want your child to get scraped knees, but from a different kind of ‘play’.

Don’t worry; the raping will not be done by other Americans for most won’t be able to afford it. For the most part, the rapes will be done by other countries, especially China for as a foreign power they have the most US debt. With the majority of the rapes being done by foreigners, there won’t be the added problem of your children being traumatized by seeing their violator repeatedly. However, there will be those of your children who will be raped by other Americans as the Federal Reserve has the most of the debt, but we might be able to get out of that for if they are actually a governmental body, then it is debt owed to ourselves and can be ignored, but if they are actually a non-governmental body… then they’ll be invading the bodies of your children.

Just keep in mind that with each bill that gets passed, Obamacare, extended unemployment insurance, EPA regulations and such, those who are passing the bills, adding to the debt while making paying off that debt more difficult, want your children to be bent over that much more, spread their cheeks that much more. Ignore the cries of the children, for it will only hurt as long as debt is still owed. The debt limit was just increased to over 16 trillion; how long would that take to pay off?

Now, was the real issue of debt seriously considered with the hyperbolic offering?—the point may be made, while being overshadowed by the example.

Wait, I forgot about two other issues affecting the attempted rapes: UNFUNDED liabilities and the manipulation of the money supply. With the those two factors, it is going to take longer to get out of the great debt our ‘leaders’ have gotten us; tell your kids to prepare their kids, and their kids, and so on.