Review: The Map and the Territory

Just finished a book entitled, "The Map and the Territory" by Alan Greenspan, the former Fed. Chairman. Earlier this year I read, "The Great Deformation" by David Stockman.

I recommend both books to everyone. They are economics, they are complex, they are dismal, but they cover real important issues affecting each and every one of us, and anyone to be born. They over lap. Greenspan's is much shorter, yet more disjointed IMO. Stockman's is epic and comprehensive.

The long and short of it is that this economy, this government, this reality isn't working out. Stockman argues that the top 1% are exploiting every one else abetted with the generous helping of the Fed. and the government regardless of which political party is in power.

Greenspan argues that unless we change its the entire species that will ultimately suffer lower raises in standard of living, lower wages, and more strife.

They both agree, as do I, that the lack of civil discourse, compromise, leadership, and growth of government are at the core of the problems.

For example, generally speaking regardless of party politicians do what benefits them in the short term, not what benefits the country in the long term. As a result government grows and its that growth that needs financed that ultimately crowds out money that could be put to better use by the private sector.

The nation is in serious debt as it it, so the debt alone is crowding out private sector investments in jobs, which obvious to everyone are quite rare and not very lucrative. Yet every election cycle politicians are compounding the problem by promising more of the same.

Both authors argue that a a readjustment is inevitable. The amount of pain brought on by the readjustment is the only thing uncertain.

Lest we discount the opinions of these two men, it would be wise to consider their personal esteem and accomplishments, as well as the fact that they are at the ends of their lives and still concerned -- akin to an old man who plants a tree though he knows the leaves will never shade him.

on Guns

taken from a thread on Gun Control,

You know what the problem with guns is? People pulling the trigger. That's the long and the short of it. Personally I consider the violence and abuse, the horrors humans commit on each other is the problem. Government and well reasoned people have endeavored to correct a lot of bias and behaviors, like littering and equality, but somehow we all have been a marked failure in civilizing everyone who needs to be civilized. You'd think after all this time, and all we know, that we could somehow apply some sort of civic peer pressure to the lessor beings among us to grow up. I think that's the ultimate answer to the gun question--maturity. Something that is evidently hard to produce in people.

on Government Shut Down

from a thread on the Federal Gov. Shut down:

its tough being against a government shut down. I empathize with the sentiment, but as the fed. government exist to reward or punish, the absence of government equates to a punishment for the people caught in its socialism embrace. And not that I like the socialist embrace myself, but to do this shut down ad hoc, after such a long lead in to this Obamacare hurts real people akin to a punishment. Sure it should be a lesson to NOT BE in that embrace in the first place, but the reality is such. Second, as the reality is everything is stable because the markets are stable, then they(those in the House of Representatives holding the shut down in place) should understand how seriously bad affairs could be if the house of cards comes down. Keeping the house of cards intact ought to be a very real concern too, IMO they are playing with a fire that shouldn't be played with--the economy.

Tea Party, I Hardly Knew Ye

To the Tea Party, I Hardly Knew You.

I was hoping this time it was going to be different. No, I’m not talking about the fortieth vote to derail ObamaCare. I’m talking about the whole Tea Party movement. I really was. The Tea Party seemed a common sense concoction. Pressure the Republican Party to adhere to its principles. Or something like that.

Principles, ethics, whatever it takes. I won’t bring it up again, why waste time…

Anyways, what happened to the Tea Party? Some say a bunch of racists, others say the last hope of our civilization. Both sides are wrong, the Tea Party isn’t a bunch of racists, but they are also too late to save anything.

What could of been! But instead of pressuring the GOP to reform. They instead wanted to reform government, and we all know that isn’t going to happen.

They could of, anticipating the probable snafus, lodged their protest to ObamaCare in the first place, allowed it to quietly take place, and be the wise old souls who are ready to take on more moralistic crusades within government. Sorry.

Nope. Forty votes later, ObamaCare is here and we may be seeing the end of the Tea Party’s effectiveness. But then again, the Republicans need them to retain any image whatsoever of being class indifferent.

When there is so much going wrong, I gotta think they could of moved on a while ago and been in a much better position when something does eventually go wrong again.

Now, even the benefit of the doubt is gone. For me anyways.

RE: ObamaCare

RE: ObamaCare.

The people for it don't seem to acknowledge the tangible reasons why people are against it. For whatever reasons.

The people against it don't seem to recognize its been vetted by two elections and the Supreme Court. Among other courts and votes.

I don't think I can squarely place myself on either side, except to say after having survived everything so far, the adult thing would be to enact it.

I seriously doubt "most Americans" are going to sign up, I believe many are going to pay the fine. Then what? Does that skew the intended benefits, consequences, and results?

Don't know. We will find out though, after its been in place for a while, and I don't see anything changing that.

Obama doesn't have to negotiate. That phase is over. Like it or not.

INFO: Individual Mandate

RE: Obamacare.

Interesting link: http://www.forbes.com/…/how-a-conservative-think-tank-inve…/

For the record, my record. The GOP is embarrassing. The individual mandate is a long time coming, IMO. Excepting a lot of bad, the fact that this is part of ObamaCare ought to be enough for many who have to accept the fact its here.

Jeez, its not like we are sending people to war....

One Thing I Know For Certain

Taken from a thread on Obamacare:

"I didn't think so, lol. But you know, its not the any one lady in the line buying high end products all the while you can easily and correctly surmise she hasn't worked a day in twenty years, but its also the fact that her parents are in front of her and her five kids are behind her too, with no chance of a real life. And speaking of life, the taxes it takes to ruin those generations of a family on the dole is robbing the life of anyone who works for a living. We all only got so much time, and when we got to pay taxes that is in fact robbing us of life. Every hour I work to pay a tax is an hour of my life I don't get back. That stealing my life. AND there is nothing I no as certain as that. Taxes rob life. Also the welfare life is not a real life either. so many lives are being robbed or diminished through socialism."

Why I'm Independent

Taken from a thread on Obamacare:

"well yeah. I mean I'm not an Independent so that I can only take the good and disregard the bad of either party of which I belonged to. I agree with you on that. See, I'm an independent so that I can see the good in either party I choose. If I just wanted to hate on Democrats all the time, well that seems to be one half of what a Republican is anyways, and I already tried that, to my dissatisfaction. I'm of the certain belief only that it is statistically impossible for any President to be completely wrong all the time. Especially one raising kids. So I know that, and so I look for the good. Finding the bad is obvious. Just ask a Democrat when a Republican is in office."

Immigration & Wealth Disparity

Taken from a thread on Immigration:

Here's a broader conspiracy on the left: immigrants, legal or otherwise, are predominately poor. Given that, and now take this: the liberals constantly evoke the imagery of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It absolutely serves their purpose to allow as many poor people in this country as possible to massage that statistic. You would think that if they really wanted to shrink the gap between the have's and the have not's, then they would prevent more of have not's from entering this grand society. Doesn't it seem logical to fix the disparity problem we got to address the problem? I don't know anything about the proposed law(immigration), but I do realize that its a little disingenuous to blithely go about harping about the disparity of wealth in this country, while shooing in as many people as you can that would make your statistic more profound.

The Limits of Legislation and Gun Control

Another shooting, and another round of gun control debate up ahead.

My position comes from supporting liberty.

There was another shooting , this time at a Naval Shipyard in Washington D.C. Again the perpetrator was, as they say, "a known subject."

And there is my point.

To think that legislation will make us safer when legislation can't even keep guns out of the hands of people who legislation should know shouldn't have guns?

How about this perspective, legislation has legislated a society where keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns is the problem.

The problem isn't good gun owners doing bad things, its bad gun owners who legislation knows is bad doing what would be expected of "a known subject."

In the end, I'm siding with the idea that gun rights are liberties, that can be taken away, but I'm not going to be that guy to want to take it away from people who might very well need it someday.

Legislation ought to prove effective first, before taking more of my liberties for itself.

Legislation has created a society where I may need all my liberties, especially a gun, but legislation wants to take that liberty away?

Consider the personnel inside the Naval Yard could not carry guns. Legislation must know that within the walls it controls, there are people who shouldn't carry guns. Yet legislation was incapable
of protecting the people inside its own walls, against someone who shouldn't have a gun, where someone carrying a gun could of done some good.

Cicero

"The one who engages in conversation should not debar others from participating in it, as if he were entering upon a private monopoly; but, as in other things, so in a general conversation he should think it not unfair for each to have his turn."

-- Cicero

Zealot ?

http://www.foxnews.com/…/cool-headed-academic-scholar-real…/

This is great!

A couple of observation, but first I didn't see the interview, didn't read the interview, didn't get caught up with the interview, and I know nothing about the book.

But. 1.) I got a post from the conservative sites I track scrutinizing his credentials, and those points read well. He's not that which he claims to be? I dunno, just parroting.

2.) I got posts from the liberal sites and liberal friends that on "Faux" news he tore a new a-hole into the interviewer. OK, just parroting.

Now this new new scrutiny of his Twitter activity.

How come liberals are quick to the potty mouth, all the while quick also to condemn a conservative for that very activity.

Its too blatant and obvious so often. Time and again, liberals want to be portrayed as the intelligent among us. Ridiculing conservatives even for making up their own science. But in the end, there are good and intelligent liberals and there are fools and worse among them. Just as there are those among conservatives.

One other observation of mine, and maybe just mine alone, and that is when conservatives do a wrong, they are self-cleansing. The perp usually gets marginalize by everyone, even his 'own'. Not always but often enough.

When a liberal does a wrong, too often there isn't a self-cleansing. In fact, the opposite usually occurs -- a rallying behind the perp.

Scholar Reza Aslan, just the latest example.

Its enough to continue to remind me that in the war between the political views in America, liberals aren't all they are wanting us to believe they are, including being the side of civility.

Take It All!

July 13, 2013

I had a conversation the other day with a neighbor.  A young(er) neighbor who had been a solid.  Now I'm starting to worry.

Stop me if you've heard this rant before, but bear with me, I may have something novel to put forth.

One of my favorite books, because it made me think the most appreciatively, is undoubtedly Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.  If you ever read it you'll know where I'm coming from,  if you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.  If you find my writing  disagreeable, read it.  You may still disagree, but I guarantee you'll think about things a good deal differently.

My conversation with C.  is probably worth retelling if for no other reason than my approach to presenting a differing view of his.  My friend was advocating wealth redistribution.  Full blown, rob the rich, give to the poor, they have more than they ever need,  its an immoral imbalance, wealth readjustment.  Seemingly its the fashionable thing to advocate now a days.

Everyone is doing it, so it must be good.  Oh, and by the way, when I say everyone is doing it.  Everyone is.  No one is unmoved by this mentality.  From the very rich to the very poor.

Voluntary or not.  I'll support that contention later.

I allowed C. to speak uninterrupted for long moments.  I interrupted at one point, it was obvious, asking how much he payed for the Washington Redskin branded mini football.

About twenty bucks he said.  O.K.  I answered.  He didn't get my point.  Of course high paid athletes were a target of his envy,  yet never once did he consider how much of his wealth he has distributed freely in the opposite direction of his prescription for what ails America.  But I withhold final judgement,  maybe he bought all his memorabilia before his socialist change of heart.

Trust me,  if he hasn't, and he broaches the subject again,  I'll feel compelled to point it out.  Hey, I can't have friends running around unprincipled.   Get rid of those brand name and star sponsored wares!

Right?  I mean if you are following the Kardashian's or Honey Boo Boo AND you complain about the wealth of stars, athletes,  or any otherwise blessed person of wealth,  then my friend, you and I ought to have a private conversation too.   Not to judge you,  but to cleanse you.   You think Che Guevara had a man cave?  Okay, he probably did,  except it had guns and books.

Not football and basketball trinkets.  He's fashionable today too.  For all the same reasons.

So back to my story, C.  had his say.  Feeling there was a certain thresh hold of wealth, and anything over that was unnecessary he saw it was right and just to take it.   Frankly,  instead of embellishing the story, I must point out he was sorely lacking on the practical aspects of his sentiments.  I never did get out of him who would take the wealth, other than it would be taken;  who would get the money, other than the poor;  or even how much money the emasculated tycoon would have left, which I think was a fair set of questions to ask.

I rebutted playing the role of Bill Gates, and why not,  he was once the wealthiest on the planet, he'd be one of the most affected, and I thought it would be neat to be in his shoes.

I asked C., "What gives you the right to take my money?"

I had too much. . . .

"If you take my wealth today, what do I do tomorrow?"

I go back to work, like nothing has happened!

"Why would I do that?"

Because that is what I do,  I work.

(hold the smirk)

"Why don't I just run my company and wealth into the ground before you take it?"

umm,  ahh.

"C.  do you realize how many millionaires, billionaires, and otherwise well paid people I've created?"

No.

"C.  Do you know that I'm giving away all my billions to help the people of the entire planet?  I intend to give it all away,  saving a modest some for my children,  before I die? "

No.

"C.  Do you know that Andrew Carnegie,  nearly a hundred years ago, formulated this philosophy of  philanthrophy and put it in a book, The Gospel of Wealth Essays and Other Writings (Penguin Classics), and many of the super wealthy have done just that over the years?  Or do you understand that there is a huge movement afoot, led by me and Warren Buffett to conspire and inspire the super wealthy of today to do just the same thing?  Give it all away before they die?"

No.

"So I should stop giving my money away, and instead allow who to take it?  The Government?"

"Why wouldn't I just leave the country before this plan of taking my money is ever put in place?"

Enough of the dialog.  But believe me,  it was real.  I really don't have to point that out do I,  that it was a real conversation.  'Cause we all know someone like this.  Someone bent on wealth redistribution.

I advocate listening to them.  Its quite breath taking.  I had a long role play with my friend.  Perhaps its worthy of a play.   We'll see,  I can ask for money from one of those new crowd sourcing sights I read about.

In the end,  I'm left thinking,  maybe more than those advocating wealth redistribution,  if I were Bill Gates they would take my wealth away and then expect me to go to work tomorrow.?

What then are they going to do with my wealth tomorrow?

The Flaw

There is a problem with Socialism.  As there are with every political philosophy.  If this were not so, then humanity would be blessed by an intrinsic and universal idea of the best form of governance, and would be practicing it by this point in time.  You would think.  But it hasn't happened.

It hasn't happened because all political philosophies have flaws.  Socialism is fashionable, and despite of its alleged dominance with the electorate today it still has flaws.

Even if the eloquent disciples of the left elaborate around those flaws.  They are still flaws if they ignore them altogether as well.

Without speaking on a subject matter that I don't know in its entirety, the liberal mind -- for I do not have one, I will limit my opinion on one flaw of the philosophy of modern liberalism.  Its sustainability.

How do you sustain socialism through the years as its practiced today?

This is of practical concern.  Socialism today is unsustainable.  Its an elephant in the room and of some concern, but not too serious concern.  Posit this, when the socialists acquired control of government in its entirety in 2008 the first accomplishment was universal health care, not a balanced budget, nor anything close to a sustainable budget.

Now talk is cheap,  actions have consequences.  This behavior is unsustainable.  Talk all you want.  I know, I KNOW-- its the Republicans standing in the way of tax increases that would lead to a balanced budget by some far distant time in the future.  I heard it all before.

Fact of the matter is, Health Care, not universally wanted, was universally enacted.  Balancing the budget was put off.

This practice of socialism in unsustainable.  Everything falls  and fails after that.

You can't bring better life to all, if you are damning future generations to pay for what you spend now.  How is that improving their lot?

We argue about gun rights.  A debate allowed by the freedom of owning a gun handed down from earlier Americans.  An American in 2050 may or may not have guns, but you can be darn sure that that American is going to have our debt to pay back.

That bluntly speaking is robbing our progeny of life.  There will be only so much time in a life to live.  Paying taxes takes time in form of labor.  You work more hours to pay those taxes, or you accept less for your labors because of taxes, that's a life wasted away directly as a result of the grand socialism in fashion from earlier times.

This a practical concern.  It will catch up to someone.  Debt.

Liberals are very smart, ask anyone of them, or visit their sites.  They won't be too modest to tell you how right they are and how wrong you are.

So I direct my liberal minded citizens to look up how Austria-Hungary fell.  Or why the British Empire isn't so much of an Empire anymore.

That can wait, the crib note is DEBT.

Without controlling our debt, socialism's grand and beautiful plans aren't sustainable.

Socialism then has a task.  Perhaps they don't want to face it, but again its a matter of practicality.  Modern Socialism has to address the flaw in its being.  It has to address Debt.

A socialist might not like it.  After all, its much wiser and more altruistic to talk about the wonderfulness of Universal Health care and ignore the debt future Americans face from this fashionable politics of today.

Its cleaner to talk about the environment.

Its safer to blame some one else, like the loyal opposition.  Or just Bush.

But in practice modern socialism is adding debt not lessening the burden, and the burden is already unsustainable.

Then again, and I admit I don't know the entirety of the liberal mind, they may have a plan already worked out.  They are that smart, just ask them.

Until I see that plan in action though, its all talk.  Along with all the dreams of how great Socialism is.

Name me one great socialist state anyways?  It would help in understanding this zealousness and righteousness in Socialism.