Why the Progressive Hate America

Don’t know where I read it, but after reading it, it was like a hazy solution where some added chemical participated all the suspended particles and left a crystal clear beaker.

The left (Progressives) hate America because America is a living rebuttal to their world view.

The left believes that the better people, those who have expertise and knowledge and credentials, should have the power to impose their dictates on everyone else. There should be central planning. The government should do things (backed by force) to make us all live better. They will improve our health, our environment and our grace by making the country more socially just. They will require all these things in accordance with their beliefs.

America experimented with freedom, allowing each person a large measure of personal sovereignty (that means personal control of themselves and their actions and their production).

Surely all right thinking people knew that allowing the riffraff freedom would lead to bad results. They need us to guide them after all.

America became a prosperous place with no central bureau to determine the production of steel or cars or anything. America became a military power. America became an attractive place to live, with order, and prosperity and freedom for individual differences. Most of all, America became fair enough that people form everywhere wanted to come live here notwithstanding the difficulties of adjusting to a different culture.

What a reproach for the elitists. Every minute that America exists and muddles through is a reproach to their world view. Thus they seek to destroy America.

Why Are There So Few Shortages Under Capitalism?

The United States is a fairly capitalistic country. People, when they go to the store to buy something, seldom encounter the answer, “There is none.”

Today in India there is a severe shortage of oxygen for hospitals. I saw an interview on TV where the Prime Minister defended his actions, he said that more oxygen was sent to Mumbai than requested by the local authorities.

Of course when these central planners were allocating the nation’s oxygen supplies to cities and regions, they had no knowledge of future needs. They did not know Coved would flare up. Does that mean that Covid was responsible for the oxygen shortages? In a sense yes, but also the way they centrally allocated oxygen was responsible for the shortages – because a different distribution system could avoid shortages.

Central planners never know future demand. They make a guess based on past patterns of demand.

Under Capitalism there is an automatic mechanism that avoids shortages. It is called price.

When hospitals discover that they need more oxygen than they planned for and can buy they bid up the price to get new sources of supply.

The higher price does two things: (i) it causes more supply and (ii) it causes less consumption. This is practically magic because that is exactly what you want: more oxygen and fewer people using oxygen.

So if in Mumbai an oxygen tank sells for $10 and in other cities it sells for $5, people who have oxygen tanks think of ways to ship them to Mumbai. This is a good result for people in hospitals that need oxygen to survive.

On the other hand, people who use oxygen face higher prices. A welder who uses oxygen tanks possibly cannot charge his customers enough to buy the new higher priced oxygen. It is no longer profitable for him to use oxygen. Less supply is used.

The fly in the ointment is that the price goes up. The hospital has to pay much more for its oxygen supplies. No one likes to pay more for anything. If the government said that in the face of shortages suppliers can not charge more for an essential product you would get exactly what you have now under central plannin: people suffocating in hospitals because no new supplies rushed to their aid and no other users of oxygen suspended their use. The law forbidding price hikes in the face of shortages would cut off the function of the price mechanism and forbid more supply for the hospital patents and less use by welders.

Capitalism Ties Consumption to Production

One of the great benefits of a capitalistic society is the material abundance enjoyed by the people.

I believe the reason people under capitalism enjoy such material abundance is because consumption is linked to production.

Under capitalism, if you are a child about to become an adult, and you want to have some spending money of your own instead of begging the parents, what do you do? You get a job. More precisely, you find an enterprise of some sort that produces stuff for other people and you offer to help them out for money.

The enterprise gets money because it provides for the wants or needs of people. It gets money because it produces.

To the extent possible, the enterprise employees people who contribute to its purpose. People who are rare to find or contribute more get paid more.

Now think of the socialist or centrally directed society.

People generally are entitled to a salary or stipend when they reach a certain status: student, or adult, administrator. The people in command determine what you get, not a market.

The idea of a uniform basic income, no matter what you do of if you do anything, is clear collectivism/socialism. The political process yields consumption. Your production is irrelevent.

Now under Socialism people do have to produce, or else there is nothing to consume. That is the reason that under Socialism there are always shortages of everything. Production has to be coerced at force. Ultimately leading to the horrific death toll of socialistic regimes.

Did Big Business Suddenly Become Woke?

Big Business in America for the past 200 years kept its public face politically neutral. Big oil said put a tiger in your tank and that was just about the end of it.. Suddenly advertisements and actions practically proclaim they are on board with the progressive movement, lock, stock and barrel. Big tech bans orange man bad.

Did top management and the directors suddenly become woke? No. Anyone with some experience living in or studying autocratic governments can recognize what is going on. Big Business is trying not to be the first person to stop clapping after comrade Stalin finishes speaking. They are loudly demonstrating that they are on board with whatever the powers that be want them to be on board with, and no one on Earth is more enthusiastic than they. Why they can clap all night after everyone else goes home.

We have crossed the black hole event horizon where everything is sucked into the power gravity well of the US Government. The government has increased its power bit by bit every year since the Constitution was ratified. Now it is all powerful.

Scholars of such absolute authority know what the clapping monkeys do not yet. Clapping long and hard may not save you. Approved thoughts will become more and more extreme, people will jockey for power by denouncing other woke people, the most ruthless and the most murderous will rise to the top.

Headlines Blare: Trump Paid No Taxes for 11 Years.

I used to work for a law firm that was fairly high powered in tax. The firm will remain nameless but it gave tax advice to Sir Paul McCartney. I did no tax work for them. From what I hear, the firm found a way to make income from intellectual property, like rights to songs, nearly income tax free.

I conjecture that this became so popular and such an attractive idea that Apple, Google, Microsoft and others followed. Their intellectual property, like the rights to songs, could be placed in corporations domiciled in a country that did not tax royalties much. Then, as much of their income as possible would be paid as a royalty payment to their affiliate that owned the intellectual property. I think it involved Holland (called Double Dutch) or Ireland (there is a whole street of modern high tech offices in an otherwise bleary Dublin).

The whole point of this is that, if this story is true, I am in awe of President Trump’s tax lawyers. Real Estate is one of those fields where cash flow can deviate from taxable income because your property may be depreciating (loosing value) more than it is paying you in cash. On paper for taxes your are loosing money, but in reality tax depreciation is not “lost market value” of the property – it is just a fictional assumed loss. Your property could be worth more but the tax code allows you to depreciate a portion of what you paid.

A good tax advisor should minimize the taxes paid by their client. Millions of transactions every day are done because words in the tax code make the transactions advantageous. If you fund a 529 plan for your children’s education you are doing what my firm did for its clients. If you contribute to a 401(k) or other tax advantaged retirement plan, you are doing what my firm did for its clients. If you have a Health Savings Account, you are doing what my firm did for its clients.

AI is to Intelligence :: Instinct is to ???

I contend that Artificial Intelligence is not intelligence at all.  It is not thinking at all.  It is an algorithm that finds statistical correlations, a sort of mock inductive reasoning. AI is like inductive reasoning because inductive reasoning looks for correlations and then tries to devise a reason for the correlations. AI is one half of the way to inductive reasoning: it looks for correlations.
The reason I think AI is definitely not intelligence is because one could not even imagine AI performing the scientific method.  That is, one could not imagine an AI program detecting correlations in data, postulating a hypothesis that could explain the correlation, and then devising an experiment that would falsify or tend to confirm the hypothesis.
AI could predict that after x there will be y because it saw millions of instances of y following x, but it could not formulate a reason for y following x.  It is just not the nature of AI or what we ask it to do. It could not possibly predict any necessary consequence of y following x because of an abstract construct of concepts about x and y.

WuHan Shutdown

Lots of people are arguing online about the virus shutdowns. The pro say we need to keep the shutdowns to preserve lives, particularly the lives of older people and those with preexisting conditions.

The cons say the shutdowns will ruin the economy. They often summarize by saying: you have to work to get money and you need money to eat.

I think they are truncating their thought. We do not work for money. We work for what money gets us.

When we work we serve the needs and desires of other people. Whatever we produce on the job is wanted by other people. In exchange they give us a claim on their work or output. That is money. It is a claim on their production, because of our production.

In this virus the government has shut down lots of business, and in an attempt to keep things going on in a normal way has distributed “Stimulus” checks to nearly everyone.

But the fact is, those people shutdown and sheltering in place are not producing what they would otherwise produce. In fact they are not producing anything. You can give them dollars to have claims on what other people are producing but they are producing nothing. So pretty soon, there will be a shortage of the things we want and need, no matter what the government does with checks and deposits. Not much is being produced for us to consume.

So there will be less for us.

Conflict of Interest

Fiduciaries and people in official positions who exercise discretion are held to certain standards.

Such people are required to avoid conflicts of interest.  A conflict of interests is when their personal interests might influence the discharge of their duties. The conflict might be that they have a relationship with a party, or they had an experience that might color their view.  No one should accept his wife’s father as the judge in his divorce.  A detective should not investigate the murderer of his son in a subsequent criminal matter.

It is not an issue of examining their decisions for bias, it is a matter of not placing them in the position of having a bias.  So all this talk of the FBI officials who clearly expressed a bias against Trump not proved to be influenced by their bias is  a side issue.  They should not be on this case if they are biased.

It is also a non-issue to say that they are entitled to political opinions.  Of course they are, but some opinions are disqualifying for investigating a politician you despise. Assign them to investigate someone else, just as you would assign a judge to preside over a case without his daughter as a party.

The One-Way Media Used to be the Ultimate Weapon

The One-Way Media used to be the ultimate weapon of social control. It was like the intro to The Outer Limits:

We will control the frame, we will control the narrative, we can change the focus to a new subject, or sharpen it to endless stories about a nothing burger. Sit quietly and we will control all you see and hear.

I had no idea how powerful they were.  Recent revelations show that they could protect anyone by simply ignoring the story. I think it is called “spiking the story.” Woman after woman tried to expose behavior they believed was criminal or near criminal, and people today seem to agree with that characterization, yet some gatekeeper of the One-Way Mass Media “spiked the story.”

The first indication of a change was Monica and Drudge. Apparently the mainstream media spiked the story of POTUS doing some questionable things with a White House intern some thirty years younger than he and in his employ. Then Drudge spread it all over the world wide web. The One-Way Media could do nothing to stop the story from reaching the attention of the public.

This trend has only grown since then. While the public really wasn’t doing Google searches for “exposed penis to me,” the progressives ginned up a war of sexual innuendo against Trump and Moore that brought attention to indiscretions to the forefront of the hive mind.

This time, the One-Way Media could not even shape the direction of the resulting narrative. If it involved a white male, public attention jumped on it. Then it was a black Congressman. Any sensational sex accusation has its day in the sun with no filter.

The public will tire of diddling stories about diddling. This will die down like stories of shark attacks on east coast beaches. Eventually they will not be reported because they will no longer get eyes.

Still, the old One-Way Media is not what it used to be. I wonder what it will be like to be no longer ruled by the gatekeepers of an old mass media technology? Who will step in their place?

 

 

Should NFL Players Express Political Views During the Game?

Suppose there were an anti-abortion NFL player. For him, abortion is killing innocents. So each time a touchdown is scored, he unfurls a sign that reads “Abortion is Murder!”

Is that OK?

The Dallas Cheerleaders display a sign during the national anthem , “Women earn 70% of what men earn in equivalent jobs!”

Is that OK?

Trump supporting players and Trump opposed players put on baseball caps expressing their particular political views while seated on the bench.

OK?