iPandora

A small village in Nepal

Barb posted a letter written to a grandson explaining and illustrating the principles of the free market and the benefits of that system over systems more concerned with equality of outcome rather than equality of potential. She got the original article from the Free Market Foundation of South Africa.

More people need to read and understand this.

April 1942

Mr dear grandson:

I will answer your question as simply as I can. Profit is the result of enterprise which builds for others as well as for the enterpriser. Let us consider the operation of this fact in a primitive community, say of one hundred persons who are non-intelligent beyond the point of obtaining the mere necessities of living by working hard all day long.

Our primitive community, dwelling at the foot of a mountain, must have water. There is no water except at a spring near the top of the mountain: therefore, every day all the hundred persons climb to the top of the mountain. It takes them one hour to go up and back. They do this day in and day out, until at last one of them notices that the water from the spring runs down inside the mountain in the same direction that he goes when he comes down. He conceives the idea of digging a trough in the mountainside all the way down to the place where he has his habitation. He goes to work to build a trough. The other ninety-nine people are not even curious as to what he is doing.

Then one day this hundredth man turns a small part of the water from the spring into his trough and it runs down the mountain into a basin he has fashioned at the bottom. Whereupon he says to the ninety-nine others, who each spend an hour a day fetching their water, that if they will each give him the daily production of ten minutes of their time, he will give them water from his basin. He will then receive nine hundred and ninety minutes of the time of the other men each day, which will make it unnecessary for him to work sixteen hours a day in order to provide for his necessities. He is making a tremendous profit – but his enterprise has given each of the ninety-nine other people fifty additional minutes each day for himself.

The enterpriser, now having sixteen hours a day at his disposal and being naturally curious, spends part of his time watching the water run down the mountain. He sees that it pushes along stones and pieces of wood. So he develops a water wheel; then he notices that it has power and, finally, after many hours of contemplation and work, makes the water wheel run a mill to grind his corn.

This hundredth man then realises that he has sufficient power to grind corn for the other ninety-nine . He says to them, “I will allow you to grind your corn in my mill if you will give me one tenth of the time you save.” They agree, and so the enterpriser now makes an additional profit. He uses the time paid by the ninety-nine others to build a better house for himself, to increase his conveniences of living through new benches, openings in his house for light, and better protection from the cold. So it goes on, as this hundredth man constantly finds ways to save the ninety-nine the total expenditure of their time – one tenth of which he asks of them in payment, for his enterprising.

This hundredth man’s time finally becomes all his own to use as he sees fit. He does not have to work unless he chooses to. His food and shelter and clothing are provided by others. His mind, however, is ever working and the other ninety-nine are constantly having more time to themselves because of his thinking and planning.

For instance, he notices that one of the ninety-nine makes better shoes than the others. He arranges for this man to spend all his time making shoes, because he can feed and clothe him and arrange for his shelter from profits.

The other ninety-eight do not now have to make their own shoes. They are charged one tenth the time they save. The ninety-ninth man is also able to work shorter hours because some of the time that is paid by each of the ninety-eight is allowed to him by the hundredth man.

As the days pass, another individual is seen by the hundredth man to be making better clothes than any of the others, and it is arranged that his time shall be given entirely to his speciality. And so on.

Due to the foresight of the hundredth man, a division of labour is created that results in more and more of those in the community doing the things for which they are best fitted. Everyone has a greater amount of time at his disposal. Each becomes interested, except the dullest, in what others are doing and wonders how he can better his own position. The final result is that each person begins to find his proper place in an intelligent community.

But suppose that, when the hundredth man had completed his trough down the mountain and said to the other ninety-nine, “If you will give me what it takes you ten minutes to produce, I will let you get water from my basin,” they had turned on him and said, “We are ninety-nine and you are only one. We will take what water we want. You cannot prevent us and we will give you nothing.” What would have happened then? The incentive of the most curious mind to build upon his enterprising thoughts would have been taken away. He would have seen that he could gain nothing by solving problems if he still had to use every waking hour to provide his living. There could have been no advancement in the community. The same stupidity that first existed would have remained. Life would have continued to be a drudge to everyone, with opportunity to do no more than work all day long just for a bare living.

But we will say the ninety-nine did not prevent the hundredth man from going on with his thinking, and the community prospered. And we will suppose that there were soon one hundred families. As the children grew up, it was realised that they should be taught the ways of life. There was now sufficient production so that it was possible to take others away from the work of providing for themselves, pay them, and set them to teaching the young.

Similarly, as intelligence grew the beauties of nature became apparent. Men tried to fix scenery and animals in drawings – and art was born. From the sounds heard in nature’s studio and in the voices of the people, music developed. And it became possible for those who were proficient in drawing and music to spend all their time at their art, giving of their creations to others in return for a portion of the community’s production.

As these developments continued, each member of the community, while giving something from his own accomplishments, became more and more dependent upon the efforts of others. And, unless envy and jealousy and unfair laws intervened to restrict honest enterprisers who benefited all, progress promised to be constant.

Need we say more to prove that there can be profit from enterprise without taking anything from others, that such enterprise adds to the ease of living for everyone?

These principles are as active in a great nation such as the United States as in our imaginary community. Laws that kill incentive and cripple the honest enterpriser hold back progress. True profit is not something to be feared, because it works to the benefit of all.

We must endeavour to build, instead of tearing down what others have built. We must be fair to other men, or the world cannot be fair to us.

Sincerely,

Grandfather

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

Lax credit and easy spending policies are products of both Democrat and Republican leaderships in years past. The conservative movement has recognized the failures of this more so than their compatriots in the liberal movement. Calls for the privatization of Fannie and Freddie, two of the main contributors to the whole system of easy credit, are not likely to be heeded by the current elected leadership in Washington D.C. And Fed Chairman Bernanke believes such easy credit is the best policy, despite it’s contribution to the economic failures of the last several years.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

Political correctness is losing favor across the ideological aisles. This false equality of outcome which relies on enforced restrictions on true equality, that is, the equality of potential, has been a pernicious evil in our country. But other perniciously evil policies continue to thrive here. Policies that drag down those who have achieved in order to not unnecessarily burden those who will not achieve with that natural and good desire to become something other than the abject failures. Except that’s not right, you can only fail if you’ve started at something. Many of these haven’t started anything and therefore aren’t failures but worse. Any system that encourages people in any way to remain nothings is evil for it robs them of their humanity as surely as Nazi extermination program robbed so many of their humanity.

You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

In that iconic moment when Joe the Plumber’s question drew out then Senator Obama’s statement that we need to spread the wealth around, it revealed a misunderstanding of economic systems that time has not changed. If you want to grow jobs, you make it easier for companies to make and keep money. If you take what they make for your own wealth redistribution programs and to “spread it around” you hurt not just the business you wanted to stick it to, but all its employees and potential employees as well. This isn’t rocket science.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.

Ever since FDR, liberal leaders have been adept at pitting class against class. There is no inherent nobility in the individual man whose mind and heart must be won. There is only the group, the LGBT, the blacks, the whites, the lower class, the middle class, the upper class, the “them”, the “us”, the hispanics, the wage earners, the corporations, the haves, the have-nots. Targeted fiscal policy meant to assuage the ire of a particular class are unconstitutional as they do not benefit every American equally, which is a requirement of federal policy. It’s vote-buying and favor peddling. And the result is a torn and fragmented society beset by such tensions within it cannot unify to address situations without.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

The poor will always be among us. This doesn’t free us from a responsibility to assist them. Instead it requires we develop consistent and repeatable patterns of assistance with several criteria. There must be a filter that prevents moochers and freeloaders from taking resources that would be better appreciated and taken advantage of by those deserving poor. And the money for such charity must be given willingly, not taken without recourse. A rich man who does not give to charity only illumines the shallowness of his own soul. He does not deserve theft of his goods, only the scorn of society.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

This is a failure of nearly everybody in leadership in Washington D.C. and a result of an uncareful electorate who do not take real pains to determine the true character of the candidate or who believe that character doesn’t matter.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.

Just as by helping a butterfly escape it’s chrysalid prison you doom it to a short, painful life and quick, ugly death, by taking away the responsibilities of a person or natural societal group, you end up with stunted and immature people who will continue all the ills aformentioned.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

There are few things more evil than to do for someone else what they are capable of doing themselves. Particularly when they are not in dire need and what they need to accomplish is a task that would encourage or build in them traits of character not already full-fledged in their being.

With an accompanying facebook status of “Yay for accidental success” this recipe began as something else.

It was an attempt at making a hearty, chunky pasta sauce inspired by an advertisement for Philly Cream Cheese that went awry, and in a good way.

The advertisement showed the couple stirring cream cheese into what appeared to be a simple tomato sauce and then enjoying it over spaghetti. The cream sauces I’d enjoyed previously tended to have a thick flavor that was not necessary enjoyable to me.

So I tried my own hand at it, and it ended up a bit too hearty for sauce, and just right for a really good soup. In my opinion.

1 medium onion(diced)
4 cloves garlic (crushed well into a near-paste)
2T olive oil

1 green bell pepper (chopped finely)
1 yellow bell pepper (chopped finely)
1 red bell pepper (chopped finely)

small handful cilantro (diced)

2 10oz cans Tomato sauce

4oz cream cheese (softened)

2 cups fresh tomato (chopped into 1/2 inch cubes)
1lb ground beef

Sweat the onion and garlic in olive oil over very low heat until the onoins are translucent.

Increase heat to medium-low until onion begins to brown lightly.

Add bell peppers and saute just until bell peppers are soft. If you over cook the bell peppers or they’ll not add texture to the soup.

Add cilantro to pepper and onion mixture for last minute of sauteing.

Brown ground beef and drain.

In soup pot warm tomato sauce over medium low, add softened cream cheese and stir until there are no lumps of cream cheese.

Mix in fresh tomato chunks, browned ground beef, and pepper and onion mixture.

Heat, stirring sparingly, until bubbling.

Serve immediately.

There aren’t pictures because we ate it all before I thought to take a picture.

If the sauce were thinner it would probably work OK as a pasta sauce. But as is it is a thick and hearty tomato soup. It even works for dipping grilled cheese sandwiches, though the extra chunks do require their own spoon for finishing the bowl.

Evil phone attacking innocent but distracted motorist

A new study is out reporting that laws forbidding cell phone use, both texting and calling, while driving do not have a significant impact on the number of car accidents. Instead, it’s distractions, not just cell phones, that kill.

In the Wall Street Journal:

Laws that forbid motorists from using hand-held phones or texting while driving don’t appear to result in a significant decrease in vehicle crashes, according to a new study by the Highway Loss Data Institute expected to be released Friday.The study, expected to be released at a conference in Washington, D.C., Friday, comes amid stepped-up efforts by federal highway-safety regulators to ban texting while driving and curb other forms of driver distraction. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood earlier this week announced rules to forbid commercial truck and bus drivers from text messaging while driving. Mr. LaHood has said he would ban all texting while driving if he could.

But the government and do-gooders who live by restricting others will not give up so easily.

The Transportation Department won’t be troubled with little things like facts:

…it is irresponsible to suggest that laws banning cell phone use while driving have zero effect on the number of crashes on our nation’s roadways. A University of Utah study shows that using a cell phone while driving can be just as dangerous and deadly as driving drunk. We know that by enacting and enforcing tough laws, states have reduced the number of crashes leading to injuries and fatalities.

In that statement they claim one substantiated claim, that the University of Utah found cell phone driving is as bad as drunk driving, and one unsubstantiated claim phrased in such as way as to scoff at substantiation, “We know that by enacting and enforcing tough laws, states have reduced the number of crashes leading to injuries and fatalities.”

That’s pretty much the same as leading an argument with “everybody knows…”, appealing to common sense without factual basis.

The Highway Loss Data Institute, which sponsored this new study, is financed by the insurance industry. This will lend credence to the study as insurance companies need to mitigate risk in order to maximize profit, and this report claims there is much less risk than previously assumed.

The facts (WSJ):

The HLDI studied data on monthly collision claims in four states that banned the use of hand-held phones by motorists before and after the bans went into effect. The HLDI also compared collision data from states that enacted bans on driving while texting or phoning to accident claims in states that didn’t enact such bans.

In New York, HLDI said its researchers found that collision claims decreased compared to other states, but the decrease began before the state’s ban on hand-held phoning took effect.

The HLDI data don’t show whether drivers involved in accidents were using cellphones at the time. But the HLDI said in a statement “reductions in observed phone use following bans are so substantial and estimated effects of phone use on crash risk are so large that reductions in aggregate crashes would be expected.”

So what are we left with? Restrictions on the use of cell phones while driving which do not affect the number of accidents.

Sounds like and apology and lifting of the regulations is in order.

Likelihood of this occuring? Nil.

Story in CNET.

Story in the Wall Street Journal.

The Gospel According To Lost

The Gospel According To Lost is not an explanation on how to use the stories and characters and ideas of the hit TV series Lost to witness to people. It’s so much more than that.

It’s a relatively short read for the size of the book. Clearly written considering the depth of the subjects it deals with. And it makes me want to finish the series.

Readers of this blog and friends know that I’m deeply concerned about the deeper things in life. Actions and externalities interest me, but intent, thought, background, worldview and philosophy hold my attention far longer.

The Gospel According To Lost is a book exploring the deeper things of that TV series from an explicitly Christian perspective.

From Hurley to Locke to Ekko and everyone between and beyond, The Gospel According To Lost explores the characters beyond their surface. Jack’s super-hero complex. Sayed’s assurance that he is beyond redemption. Kate’s inability to get beyond her terrible past.

And then it shows how the growth in each character embodies a growth we can empathize and sympathize with. We’ve either been there ourselves or we can see it as normal to the human condition. And it all revolves around a redemptive process. Some experience redemptive change, some cannot make that leap and so are left grasping in futility.

I recommend this book for anyone who loves the TV series Lost, for anyone who enjoys great literature for it’s character depth and wants an exploration of characterization in a newer medium, and for anyone seeking to understand an icon of our popular culture which has with such strength and depth provided this intriguing and complex look into each of our hearts and lives.

Or if you just want to see how the grand scope of the Bible can be effectively applied to our modern lives in a constructive and informative way, The Gospel According To Lost is for you.

Unrestricted free market

Gary A writes article on the investing opinion site SeekingAlpha.com claiming that while limited government sounds good, it’s not a reasonable policy if the goal is market stability:

I support the free market but unlike them I don’t trust the free market. I don’t think that having just capitalists in charge of the free market can possibly keep it free very long. Capitalists cannot police themselves. Every game has rules. Try playing baseball without umpires. Try playing tennis without line judges. There are even rules when racing at the Indianapolis 500.

I agree with him, to an extent:

I agree that having capitalists in charge of capitalism can and has caused many a problem. Having Marxists in charge of a market causes even more.

The issue is that there is no suitable force acting upon the individuals that make up a government capable of restraining their choices actions.

And the more levels of government that are constructed to check and balance any system of man only lead to more levels of waste and corruption as they, in turn, fall to the very same forces.

The brilliance of the original American system was that it pitted this thirst for power against itself by building three branches of government with competing but not overlapping responsibilities.

This system worked well enough, for in that inherent tension there was stability left for those under it.

As the government’s greatest enemy was itself, instead of the people, the people were free to go about their ways.

As the government power alignment adjusted, mainly beginning with Lincoln’s power consolidation in the Civil war the forces of government were aligned and now could seek to take power, not from each other, but from the populace.

So is it a perfect system? No. Is it better than the alternatives? It depends on how you define better. I would say it is, with better being that state where there is least government intrusion into my affairs and then only so much as is necessary to prevent me from infringing unjustly on another’s affairs.

Of course, then you get into what is just and unjust.

The whole problem is that unless you accept a sovereign moral force who/which defines morality for us unsovereign beings, there is really no way to define right except through might.

Those in power get to define morality apart from that sovereign moral entity. And without an acceptance of a sovereign moral entity there is no legitimate basis for a universal and effective set of ethics to guide the behaviors of individuals, groups, corporations, societies, or nations.

Yes, I believe it all boils down to whether or not you subscribe to the idea there is a higher power who will judge you for your actions and your intentions and the results.

Run away!

Vowing to “reverse the overall erosion in middle class security” President Obama is trying to reconnect with us poor plebes left out in the cold with all this uncertainty.

Probably because he’s had his pants handed to him more often than he’s done the handing this year, and mostly because of massive levels of policy-specific disapproval in the middle class, he’s trying to make good enough to not have it handed to him again in upcoming elections.

His pet projects to engender warm fuzzies in my quivering breast (Ok, that sounded a little weird): use my money to pay for every other poor schmucks child care, retirement, student loans, and elderly parents.

In other words, if you’re living outside your means such that you need more than one parent can make, if your primary retirement plan is to play the lottery, if you’re attending a college you can’t afford, and if your parents had the same problems, you get my money to square your books.

Yup. I’ve got all kinds of warm fuzzies here for you, Mr. President.

This is what’s called a buy out. President Roosevelt (Franklin Delano, to be exact) was master at this, pitting party against party, class against class.

The problem here is that I’m middle class and I’m not going to be taking advantage of any of these programs, which means, by default, I’ll be getting taken advantage of.

See where all these warm fuzzies are coming from? They’re certainly not Tribbles.

Here’s my (unsolicited) suggestions, Mr. President. Back off. Stay away. Shut my pocket book. Quit meddling.

Why don’t I like being meddled with?

People don’t like to be meddled with.
We tell them what to do, what to think.
Don’t run, don’t walk.
We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right.
We’re meddlesome.

Line 4 there folks, “we haven’t the right” (Thanks to River Tam and Serenity for the above wisdom).

I’m most comfortable when I’m left alone (by the government) to do as I ought. That is an important distinction from doing as I like. The government does have responsibility to constrain those who do as they like to the detriment of those who haven’t liked what was done to them. Government has no right to do as they like to those who’d rather be left to do as they ought.

Thankfully, I don’t believe Mr. President, for all his awesome rhetorical ability, is former President Clinton. He’ll not be able to communicate this program in any way that will make it appear less than it is to those who care.

President Clinton actually changed his policies when he say how the chips fell against him. He became downright conservative in his fiscal policies and beguiled enough to remain in power.

President Obama has too much blood in the game, is too invested in his Marxist ideology to change his policies, and so he is left only to dress them up. Which is something he can only do to himself with any success.

The New York Times highlights, of course, that this is nowhere near the levels of rainbows and unicorns promised during the campaign:

Mr. Biden rejected criticism that the proposals Mr. Obama was unveiling were relatively small-bore compared with the vast and sweeping measures he pushed during his first year in office. “They’re big-deal things if you’re just able to give some respite for a husband and wife, both working, to give a little bit of help,” Mr. Biden said.

So no one is happy with President Obama now.

Darn.

Oh, and don’t even get me started on how he’s concerned about the middle class. What about the lower class? What about the upper class? Aren’t they all American’s too? The middle class must be the biggest, most homogeneous voting bloc.

Kudos to Harry Reid?

Harry Reid is proposing putting the force of law behind rules already on the books requiring all future obligations Congress saddles us with to be funded prior to enactment.

Congress already lives within similar budget rules but routinely waives them. However, the new rules would carry the force of law and be enforced by the threat of across-the-board spending cuts if they are violated.

Apparently he’s a rather unwilling convert to the idea, being pressured by the “blue-dog” Democrats who tend to hold to more fiscally sound ideas while maintaining a (D) after their name.

These rules are similar to those enacted in the 90’s which helped contribute to the balanced budget of ‘98. Those rules expired in ‘02 and have not been re-upped.

So kudos to Senator Reid. I’ll think a few happy thoughts about you after you are forced out by a landslide defeat in your next election.

Democrats have been pulled to the left, to the left.

And I’d welcome a move to the right from them. Sure, it’s harder to tell people apart when they’re so similar, but the fights aren’t quite as “end of the world” as they are when there are such polar opposites at stake.

Senator Evan Bayh (D)

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana prescribes such a move to save the party of the donkey from a potential rout in upcoming elections.

President Obama should, according to Bayh, “draw a line in the sand on spending” and promise vetoes for bills that exceed those limits. Yea, with you there. I’d like that.

Democrats are “tone deaf” to what people are really saying in the ballot boxes and around water coolers:

It is amazing that some people here in Congress still don’t get it.…For those people it may take a political catastrophe of biblical proportions before they get it. I don’t think we’ll get to that. But we might.

Senator Bayh has good reason for his warnings, he’s up for reelection. And with the public increasingly understanding the national import of even local elections, he’s liable to get thrown out as any other Democrat, especially as his fellow Hoosiers tend strongly to the conservative.

So he chides Washington Democrats for being “out of touch”, for being foolhardy in spending, for not passing the best jobs policies, namely tax-cuts for small businesses.

He isn’t sure bashing banks will bring real economic improvement to average Americans, and he staunchly opposes denying Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a second term. He said he prefers “positive populism” in the form of, for example, more aggressive moves to create jobs and lower college costs. Above all, he wants that presidential line in the sand on spending and deficits.

Keep up the good advice Evan. I’ll think higher of you than I think of Harry Reid after you’ve been ousted too. Or perhaps you can join the party you belong in and put that pen to use where we actually believe in those things.

It just might save your bacon come November.

Oh, and I really can’t end even this post without digging some at Harry. I’m feeling a little icky after congratulating Senator Reid above.

Feeling better now.

Rajendra K. Pachauri

Or was it “I lie to get paid”?

The U.N. climate chief presided over a report which has been used to justify huge increases in U.N. spending on certain pet projects of the climate lobby which has been found to be, um, faulty.

The factual inaccuracies were found prior to the climate change conferences which were full of attempts to globalize governments, spend more money on pet projects, and various other things, and yet they were not corrected or retracted before the conference.

So now, understandably, there are calls for this scientist-cum-bad liar/opportunist (hey, sounds like the majority of people calling for more government control in the name of global cooling, or was that warming?) to step down, and he won’t.

Because there are no external moral forces compelling him to act morally, his own power and desires are his only guiding light.

So we strip his power and/or shame him.

Oh, did I mention the climate panel Rajendra heads won a Nobel Prize for that lie report?

Charles' Scartlett Letter

YaVaughnie Wilkins posted the signs after she learned that her lover, Charles E. Phillips — president and director of the tech conglomerate Oracle Corporation and a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board — had reconciled with his wife, the New York Post reported.

Charles E. Phillips has a 10 year old son, has had an 8-1/2 year “serious relationship” with Wilkins, and is a “family man”.

That means he’s “loved” this woman almost as long as he’s had a son. Consider the implications of that.

He’s a creep, untrustworthy, etc.

Well, he’s worthy of something, social disapprobation and shaming.

Which is exactly what YaVaughnie did. For the wrong reasons, yea. But I’m begging and not feeling particularly choosie.

Read about her billboards.