The money that you are spending comes from people against their will. You should, at the very least spend that money as carefully as you would your own.
BULLSHIT. Or whatever percentage you wish to claim. If you work, and it’s not black market, than you are taxed. Just because your tax return says that you didn’t pay, or were even returned more money than was withheld, the various taxes on employers (don’t get me started on the self employed) for giving people jobs mean that employees are paid far less than they would without unseen employer fees. What is seen and unseen. Consider.
from Krugman:
It’s all there: mass unemployment is necessary, because you have to shift resources away from sectors that got too big, stimulus is a bad thing because it slows the necessary adjustment. And now as then, the whole notion falls apart when you ask why, say, a housing boom — which requires shifting resources into housing — doesn’t produce the same kind of unemployment as a housing bust that shifts resources out of housing.
So I realize I’m just a simpleton, but what law of economics says that when more employers are hiring, unemployment should go up? Or is he working in a zero sum world? But then people would just be moving from one field to another.
If you belive that these are rights (FDR from an article at Mises.org)
the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
the right of every family to a decent home;
the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
and the right to a good education.
then we need not talk. These are things that one works for. They are not a right.
It’s often much easier to comment on other blogs than to post to my own. It is however important to realize that the tone of other sites varies greatly and that context is not available. For instance rambling without full connection between statements is not usually understood outside of the home roost.
Anyhow, the end result is a two sentence, fairly succinct summation of my political philosophy: I do not believe that it is morally acceptable for a group of people or their agents to do what ANY one person cannot morally do. I believe that is not acceptable to initiate force.
from LewRockwell
if the neighborhood bully comes out of his house one Saturday morning not just with his baseball bat, but dressed head to toe in body armor, no one exclaims: how great–he’s gone defensive.
Because, deep down, they don’t like the idea that people really do want McDonalds, Walmart, and 3 billion tv stations. The downside of the market is that it delivers what most people want, not what some people want everyone to want.
Disregard tribe and evaluate only on the facts. For a fun experiment try switching “democrat” and “republican”, or replacing “republican” with “native american” and “democrat” with “radish farmers”.
from Krugman
Ted Kennedy
I don’t have much to say, except a personal thought. I remember the days, several decades ago, when Ted Kennedy was treated — mainly, but not only, on the right — as a figure of derision. He was mocked for his appearance, his personal life, his unabashed liberalism.And now he’s remembered as a great man. The thing is, he didn’t change — he always was.
Dense about density
Right now, I’m on New Jersey Transit, near Rahway. Around me is apost-apocalyptic wastelanddense development as far as the eye can see. And not a buffalo in sight.And you know what? A large fraction of the American population lives in places like this. Yes, America overall has low density, but many of us live in high-density corridors; very few of us live in the wide open spaces. That’s why arguments that, say, we can’t have high-speed rail, because America’s population density is so low, are profoundly stupid. Which does not, of course, stop them from being made.
So this rigorous evaluation understands the difference between sprawling suburbs and say tokyo, london, or ny? How about an analysis of persons per square mile who are traveling to the same square mile area? The truth is that we don’t go from the same general area to work as other people in our own general area. Sorry, but anywhere outside of square miles of high rises, the differences between where neighbors live and work isn’t sufficient to justify rail.
Generally speaking, if you have to use force, it is not ok, if not then it’s probably not harmful.
There may be times when a healthy economy would encounter the position of “full employment” but they will be brief. I might be on a deserted island and represent full employment trying to collect enough coconuts not to die every waking hour. I might be one of a couple dozen on an island where coconuts fall all the time so only one or two people must collect coconuts to survive. The rest of us laze about unemployed. The point is, full employment is more likely a sign of poverty than wealth.
Time to reread Atlas Shrugged. Or just watch the news, they’re basically the same thing.
Putting lipstick on a pig. From BoingBoing
Inspired by this article from Cheryl and STR (see previous post for links)
We don’t call a mechanic a scientist, though he carefully examines the functioning of a physical system, makes a hypothesis, and an experiment that quickly plays out in the real world. Calling someone a “scientist” is like calling someone an “Artist”. It might cover the general sense but it could mean a master painter or a throat singer. Or even something even more bizarly inexplicable.
