Guns don’t kill people. Progressive policies do!

With recent separate shootings (man kills eight in August / another man kills seven  in September) I’ve been seeing lots of the usual blame.  You know,  “America’s lunatic obsession with guns”, the NRA, the Second Amendment, hillbilly rednecks who are so dumb compared to NYC and West Coast elites, etc.

It’s been a while since I’d addressed, so here goes again:

In the US, there are well over 300 million guns in private hands. I last ran the numbers a few years ago on the CDC and crime numbers available 2011, which at the time were “the latest”.  Here’s what it showed:

Assuming a unique gun per murder (which as the examples above clearly show is NOT the case), a privately owned U.S. gun has a 0.0037% chance of being used in a murder.  That’s extraordinarily low.  So low, it’s statistically irrelevant in terms of cause and effect.

But here’s the shocker:  If you eliminate gang warfare (e.g., the pandemic of shootings in urban decay areas of Chicago, as noted), the odds of a privately owned gun being used to murder drops to 0.0007%. Yes, over 80% of U.S. gun murders are gang and, by direct relationship, often drug-war related.

And as a reminder, that correlation is much lower than a 0.0007% chance because gangs use the same guns for multiple murders, which also applies also outside of gang situations where you get crazy person deciding to go postal, e.g., the two articles linked at top.

In other words, gun ownership does not correlate to gun murder. Specific demographics do.

Supporting that is the fact that gun sales in the U.S. over the last decade went through the roof under increased threats of gun bans of various types, from pistols to tactical sports rifles, to magazine size and bullet availability.  All of this driven from lefty authoritarian activists and politicians who believe the government elites can only be trusted to monopolize gun ownership.  Indeed, the U.S. gun manufacturer lobby could not have had a better ally for profitable business than Obama.

Yet, despite record gun sales and a massive bulge in private ownership, gun murders actually declined over that period. So, despite hysteria from lefties, more guns does not = more gun crime. Instead, you could make the argument that it reduces it.

On Public Transportation vs Free Markets

I encountered a “muh roads” argument in the comments section of an article about funding of a local transportation system that’s crumbling under its own inefficiency, with the usual advocates and cronies demanding more taxpayer bailouts and subsidy.

My thoughts on it all:

Folks both Democrat and Republican have been indoctrinated that government is the only way. That’s what happens when government mandated union workers teach k-12 at government run schools with government mandated curriculum.  Hence, collectivization appears to them as the only solution, much like to a cult member, certain concepts seem self evident, no matter how dubious.  Hence, most citizens clamor for price fixing of labor, cronyism in contractors, and laws that prohibited competitive price discovery… on top of socialist redistributionism to help riders cover the cost, especially those who are deemed “in poverty”.   Hence, articles like the one linked above.

In truth, Transportation is no different than any other service or good = not exempt from basic laws of economic gravity.   The only reason government is the only player in these niches is due to a century ++ of government intervention that has both crowded out and prevented / stunted competition from and within the private sector.  In this case, from assisting crony cartel attempts on a local level to the PA Utility Commission (PUC) intervening in mandated price fixing (often to lock out new, lower cost competition), the market was increasingly cronyized and eventually socialized to the point where private interests were glad to sell out to Pittsburgh’s county government  in 1964, with stragglers throwing in towel vs. competing with taxpayers.  Today PAT (Pittsburgh Area Transit) is bloated with operation costs that far exceed the natural market price to provide these same services, as a means to enrich politically-connected labor organizations, crony public transport contractors and the politicians who trade in those favors.   The PUC heavily regulates any attempt to compete with the bloated PAT, making competition impossible against heavy tax-subsidized rides. It personifies your “utterly dysfunctional”.

For perspective, look at what PA and Pittsburgh / Allegeny County Government and the PUC-created cab cartels did to transportation: Pittsburgh was famous for overpriced, pathetic cab service, indifferent to customer demand.  At high demand times, cabs were chronically unavailable. Dispatchers would promise cabs that would arrive late (we’re talking more than an hour) or not at all, which made for interesting trips to catch flights at the airport, etc.  But for Uber and Lyft’s willingness to bypass Pittsburgh’s local cartel’s protectionist rules and go directly to the consumers who embraced them immediately and overwhelmingly, the citizens of the region would still be suffering under PUC mandated BS as they currently suffer with PAT.

One of the commenters chastised a call for ending government cronyism in the comment section as Ayn Rand “every man for himself” evil, a quip that betrayed a horrible misunderstanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and Free Markets in general, what to say of a lack of historical perspective.  But this is commonplace. Most have only been exposed to Rand and Free Markets via second or third hand sources, usually  progressive and neo-marxist critiques. Or in the case of free market economics, much through texts authored by modern economists, analysts or pundits out to justify collectivist central planning of money, interest rates and economic cycles.  Hardly unbiased sources for presenting the material credibly.

A Question for Minimum Wage Advocates

Don Boudreux poses the question:

If enforcement of minimum-wage policies were carried out in practice by policing low-skilled workers rather than employers – if these policies were enforced by police officers monitoring workers and fining those workers who agreed to work at hourly wages below the legislated minimum – would you still support minimum wages?

Read Don’s full thought at his Cafe Hayek site here.

The Inherent Authoritarianism of Progressives

Progressives like to act all virtuous by citing their objectives, but when you scratch the surface of how they try to implement their preferred solutions, it’s downright ugly stuff.

Progressives like to say government is just a word for things we all do together, but that misses a crucial point. Left to their own devices, a lot of people would choose not to do certain things at all—or would choose to do them less, or differently, or with somebody else. Government actually is the way some people get other people to do things without their consent and even in the face of their strenuous objection. If the non-consenting people object too obstinately, the government will bring physical violence to bear. Government is not in the habit of taking no for an answer.

You can read the rest from the article at Reason Magazine here.

What’s Better than Building a Trump Wall? Getting dramatically better results while saving $ trillions by cutting government.

Dear Donald Trump

We don’t need to build a wall. We need to build an invisible fence. As illustrated below, rather than costing taxpayers additional hundreds of $ billions to service, it will save $ trillions over the long-run.

We build an invisible fence by:

1) Rescinding the anchor baby laws. No longer do non-citizens’ kids get auto-citizenship.
2) Ending welfare and all entitlements for non-citizens. That means unless you are a citizen you don’t get any taxpayer-financed anything. No school for the kids you smuggle in, etc. No citizenship, no handouts. End of story.
3) Prosecuting employers who hire illegals to the fullest extent of the law. With those 3 items you’ve eliminated most all incentives for coming across the border. (I am open to eliminating this if other government interventions are removed that disrupt the labor pool.)
4) Eliminate most all entitlement welfare for most / all able bodies adults of sound mind. This will provide a massive pool of unskilled labor for U.S. employers who claim “no U.S. citizens will take the jobs”. When deadbeats don’t get paid to F off, they’ll be ready to work.

If you want to build the invisible fence higher:

5) rescind the minimum wage laws. There is no reason unskilled labor on one side of an imaginary line should be worth $15 an hour for knowing nothing compared to the other side of the line where it’s worth $1. All it does is drive up costs for consumers, including the low-wage earners this is supposed to benefit, while also encouraging employers to replace wages with automation that doesn’t need benefits, does not get sick or sue for discrimination, etc. And it draws people across the border for the extra, artificially created wage gap.

And if you truly want to solve the problem, we must:

6) Criminalize having children you can’t care for. The act of having a child is not a crime. However, dumping the costs of the kids you keep birthing onto taxpayers is anti-social to the ‘nth degree and is in EVERY WAY stealing from others so you can live without suffering the financial consequences of YOUR CHOICES.

You are not entitled to be financially incentivized / supported by taxpayers to have children!  After one kid the state will help, but you’re expected to both identify the father AND also work, OR YOU WILL BE JAILED. Fathers who refuse to assume financial responsibility for their children will go to jail.  The taxpayer is not your cuckolded husband. Financial obligations will be equally split between parents.  Siring kids on someone else’s dime is not your right.

If you have a second child that you are unable to support, you will go to jail for a mandatory 5-years because you cannot be trusted not to steal.  It will be a repayment jail and you will learn a work ethic and your labor will be sold by the state to compensate for caring for your children. You can always be released from jail if you 1) immediately assume financial responsibility for your children or 2) voluntarily become sterilized. After your five-years is done, you are welcome back, BUT if you have another child you can’t care for, you’ll serve 10-years. Then 20. Then 40.

While hard working, middle and upper class families self-regulate and have smaller and smaller families to make ends meet, we are insane to subsidize the least socially and financially responsible, often the lowest IQ types, to have many kids who grow up in broken families to learn zero work-ethic, who then contribute to 90% of crime / gun violence / murders, an who geometrically expand the same population demographic mimicking the learned cultural behaviors. The math on this is simply unsupportable and unless corrected, the U.S. will go bankrupt subsidizing births of those who can’t support their own progeny once they have become the majority.

7) Privatize all government-run charity by ending taxpayer redistribution for entitlements. Big Government run entitlements is a $ trillion MEGA business run by self-serving union workers, horsetrading politicians and private contractors whose self-interest lies in not solving problems, but expanding them to their own profit. The entitlement industry does not measure success by reduction of the number in poverty, but rather by increasing the numbers of beneficiaries reached = a twisted success metric of “the more poverty, the better”! Nobody with a hand in the till wants the market to provide lasting solutions because that would eliminate their political power.   In contrast, private charity must compete for contributions and, unlike government wastefulness / politics, therefore actually demands that those getting handouts assume behavior that is conducive to ending dependence.  This, vs. fostering a growing need for more and more handouts, ala # 6 above.

If you want to eliminate the need for high skilled labor exemptions to non-citizens often talked about:

8) End compulsory state education. Open government / union-run schools to 100% competition.  Migrate to end all compulsory / taxpayer financing of schools and end compulsory attendance.   Close the Department of Education. End all government subsidization of higher education, including loan-guarantees.  Economic gravity / real world human needs / consent-based demand should drive ALL education, not political self-interest.  End of story. The problem with lack of educated people is a broken system driven by politics and central planning rather than genuine market demand-economics.  Too many rack up debt used to earn economically useless degrees.  This will streamline our education to being purpose driven rather than political / hobby driven.

 

Truth disclosure:

Though the results of such policy changes might act like a wall or fence in ways pro-Trump folks like, these ideas are really not analogous to a real fence, electric, wall or otherwise. I used that term to get the attention of the pro wall-building crowd. But we don’t need a wall to stop these policies. We JUST NEED TO END THE STUPID POLICIES that created the problem.

None of these problems are natural to our environment. They are the byproduct of endless government meddling, the consequences of bad laws creating problems that are used by the politically motivated / self-interested to justify a whole new set of laws intended to fix the problems.  These, in turn, only serve to create a whole new set of unintended consequences, an endless cycle corkscrewing into dysfunction regardless of purpose withe the only winners being those with sufficient political power to earn a living off if.   Indeed, this is the essence of government run amuck: intervention begetting more intervention, begetting yet more intervention, never solving the problem.  Those in Government win while the policies, at first gradually and then with ever-increasing force, choke out the life of the rest of the nation, economy, etc. all at the expense of taxpayers / our liberty.

The point is: WE DON’T NEED AN $800 BILLION WALL, and we certainly don’t need the bureaucratic legacy it will enshrine.  This is just more government.  We just need to end the stupid policies that created the problem. By ending the policies, we’ll no longer have to argue about “who will pay for the wall”, and instead we’ll be talking about $ billions of taxpayer saved annually, lower deficits and hopefully a declining government debt for our kids and grand-kids.  Combined with elimination of complex regulation and excessive taxation — a consent-based business environment without all the intervention, flow of immigration would trickle to true economic demand in an economy growing more rapidly akin to the revolution in wealth creating and standard of living that occurred in the late 1800s.

Ronald Reagan is purported to have once quipped something to the effect of “if the answer to your question is “more government”, then you’re asking the wrong questions”.  The Wall is no exception. Like all politician-inspired ideas, without question the Wall addresses a genuine concern of many people.  But like nearly all government, it will over-promise and under-deliver — It will become a $ billion boondoggle requiring endless, ever growing government-run overhead to service.

Moreover, it only treats the symptoms.

The answer is to remove the government meddling that created the problems.

Operation Charlie Sheen

The NeoConsevative nexus (e.g. where the GOP and the Democrats always agree) that collectively are the “War Party” should call their interventionist agenda in the Middle East “Operation Sheen”.

That’s “Sheen”, as in “Charlie Sheen”.

Because just like the actor at the prime of his melt-down, in the face of complete an utter evidence that what the War Party doing is 1) self-destructive, 2) counterproductive, and 3) creating increasingly worse problems than when they started in 1991, they still think they’re “Winning!” with their Mid East policy and want to pile on more.

  • Destroyed liberty at home? “Winning!”
  • Destabilized Mid East? “Winning!”
  • Radicalized Iraq? “Winning!”
  • Arab Spring? “Winning!”
  • More Israelis Settlements in disputed territory? “Winning!”
  • Thousands of Christians and Jews displaced from their century-old homelands throughout the mid east thanks to the instability? Many Christian churches burned and Christians massacred? “Winning!”
  • Secular Mid East governments toppled and replaced with more radical governments? “Winning!”
  • Moderate and Western friendly Islam massacred? “Winning!”
  • Trillions of debt at home hanging around the necks of our kids and grand-kids amid a stagnating economy? “Winning!”
  • Blow-back terrorism at home?  “Winning!”
  • etc.?   “Winning!”

It is true that you can apply the Charlie Sheen principal to most all U.S. foreign policy initiatives, and even domestic policy.

There is much Irony that so many among the Tea-Party War-hawk proletariat (who I call the “Patriot Wing” of the Tea Party) are able to identify this “Winning!” failure-principal very clearly within most of the progressive agenda. They are quick to criticize a progressive push to expand government stupidity when it’s from Dem’s, and are relentless in harassing the GOP’s dramatic acquiescence to those demands — a.k.a, calling them out as RHINOs.   But they fail to see the hypocrisy in that the Patriot Wing is as enamored as any RHINO politician with implementing their own busy-body agenda.

Indeed, there is much to criticize with what they are criticizing from the RHINO progressives:   The backpedaling cuckservative support of the failed entitlement state, where the GOP is as much to blame for allowing the government to confiscate wealth from the functioning economy so that it may run a highly-politicized, no-strings-attached form of charity, with government unions planting themselves as middlemen who entitled to their above-market wages and benefits; a well-feathered nest so heavily conflicted with self-interest, any sober bystander is left to question if the failures / growth of poverty is not merely a well-crafted business growth plan.

While the RHINOs may not have been the original architects, they fall all over themselves to appear friendly to the worst of the poverty-pimp politicians, all in a desperate attempt to capture some of the influence-peddling benefits gained by handouts.  The Patriot Wing sees it’s financed by We The People’s confiscated liberty and wealth in exchange for votes, and their is little doubt among Tea Partiers of where RHINO  priorities lie.

These are endless and obvious failures, yet the progressive drumbeat is always for more intervention — each new policy at the expense of other Americans as they rob Peter’s economy to subsidize Paul’s.

To resurrect the Meme:  The War on Poverty?  Failures?   Corruption?  Endless calls for larger and larger expenditures, etc.??   “Winning!”

And yet, although the Patriot Wing and many other hawkish GOP supporters identify this folly, they seem to go blind when it comes to foreign intervention.   When confronted about the failures of the Mid East policy they support, you’ll see a reflex of denial.  You’ll find excuses or claims to non-existant victory.  And you’ll hear demands for throwing more good money after bad, no different than Bernie Sanders calling for more socialism to fix what the socialism we already have has broken.

 

U.S. Foreign policy supported by the Tea Party Patriots?  Winning!  They are more like Hillary than Ron Paul who functionally seeded the concept of the Tea Party.

Exposed, U.S. foreign policy leaders remain in denial of the warnings given 25-years ago by well-reasoned analysts on the folly of the Neoconservative policy agenda as outlined by prominent NeoCons well before Iraq 1, the infamous Project for the New American Century , 9/11.  supported by the usual suspects — Kagen, Kristol, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Cheny, Rumsfeld, etc.  It is in denial of the warnings they gave about destabilizing, sanctioning, and then toppling the secular regime of Saddam Hussein.  It remains in denial of every warning since.

If you don’t see this, it’s time to take off the rose colored glasses.

Minimum wage fallacy, misguided hatred (and victim-blaming) – of free markets

Another back and forth with a person confused into supporting the politics of envy and redistribution.

Enjoy.

Republican’s are such hateful and stupid people. They have one mantra – “I got mine, so screw you”.

When the minimum wage is raised, it raises everyone. People have more money to spend which drives the economy and builds/expands business. If the masses don’t have money to spend, they can’t help expand the economy.

It isn’t just high school kids that make the minimum wage, many single moms and under educated workers are also struggling to make ends meet while the upper echelon enjoy the spoils of their work.

I make far more than the minimum wage (several times that, plus) – own a home, have a portfolio and have built security for myself, but I still vote democrat . There is a difference between right and wrong and hiring someone for a wage that doesn’t even allow them to sustain a life is just wrong. – But again for a Republican there is only one truth – “I got mine so screw you!”

My reply:

Republican’s are such hateful and stupid people. They have one mantra – “I got mine, so screw you”.

LOL. Yeah, and the Libertarians get the same BS caricature from the progressives. Anyone who does not like letting the government exchanging your liberty and wealth for their crackpot ideas that they want to chain us all to… We’re the problem. Not them, the authoritarian-progressives (a redundant phrase since the latter always requires the former) and their know it all, monopolized solution process.

Losers.

Let charity be voluntary and let the market solve problems rather than busy body know-it-alls who do more to compound the destruction of the what’s left of a functioning economy. They slowly strangle the golden goose. Thanks, but no thanks to you.

These guys understand it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

<

Yeah, charity can be voluntary – are you going to ensure that no one gets left behind? That there is more than enough to provide? And market solutions – what a joke – conservatives hate looking at history because it invalidates their arguments. Do you think we fought for 40 hour work weeks because employers were giving worker too much time off? You think time and 1/2 for overtime was just some idea that we thought might work? When you let “the market” solve the problems you find that the market has personal greed as it’s primary driver and there are more problems cause than are trying to be corrected. I am for a free market, to a point, but there has to be a check on abuse and our history abundantly demonstrates that abuses will occur.
 

Yeah, charity can be voluntary – are you going to ensure that no one gets left behind?

Nobody can assure that, not even big government, with its overpaid union bureaucrats taking a fat chunk as middlemen.

And market solutions – what a joke – conservatives hate looking at history because it invalidates their arguments.

Progressives always conveniently forget that millions of people immigrated to the United States for the American Dream long before they inserted themselves into the scene by promising free lunches of “wealth now vs. a little bit later”, which was how it worked then. They fail to account for how so many pauper Europeans reached wealth beyond their dreams to varying degrees vs. the alternative.

Don’t tell me about ignoring history.

Do you think we fought for 40 hour work weeks because employers were giving worker too much time off? You think time and 1/2 for overtime was just some idea that we thought might work?

 

Do you think a 40-hour work week was even feasible in a country that did not already accumulate unheard of amounts of wealth without individual liberty, property-rights and a free market?

Already in the U.S., long before labor laws, the U.S. employee was gaining ground vs. anywhere else in the world in unprecedented fashion. This was driven mostly by competition and free market labor fluidity, where an employee with experience could migrate to a higher wage and/or better conditions offered by competitors. Surely corporatists hated this and began their efforts to monopolize power through a stronger centralized government in order to hamstring competition / guarantee profits. Unions answered this by creating labor-monopolies that benefited their own members as the expense of consumers and non-union workers, and killed competition from non-union labor that would provide better prices or service to consumers. They were anti-liberty, corporatist bedfellows.

They may have fast-forwarded a 40-hour work week and overtime rules, but not cost-free. Long term, both contributed to making U.S. labor less fluid and competitive.

On Hong Kong and Protestors – What Should the U.S. Do?

The U.S. could simply issue a statement:

“The U.S. believes a nations’ primary, if not sole responsibility, is protecting the individual liberty of its citizens. We do not condone actions by governments that violate their citizens’ liberty, nor do we support populist democracy movements whose goal is to seize power only to swap the government with a different set of violations of individual liberty.

We hope those involved in the current problems in Hong Kong consider their ultimate goals in terms of human rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We denounce any and all efforts by any party that are contrary to that sentiment.”

It would be a lie, though, because most all in the U.S. Government don’t believe this in any way whatsoever.

Debunking common progressive claims of greatness

Again, another conversation with a progressive. This one claiming all sorts of credit for the wonderful things done by Progressives, while asserting that conservatives have done nothing.

I’m no conservative on most issues. On the other hand, I have no love for Progressives arguing about how they’re so great, and others just stupid. So here are his comments in block quote, and my replies between.

Liberals broke us free from the conservative British monarchy.

Classical liberals, only. The ones who believed in LIBERTY, not the present ones who call themselves “progressive”, whose methods are fundamentally authoritarian / trample liberty.

Then they forced the slavery issue…

Abolitionists were a wide range of folks, from classic “liberals” who felt it was immoral for liberty to be violated, to conservative Christians who felt it was unChristian, to those who wanted to eliminate slavery as labor competition — but still embraced racist work laws – as a way to improve white labor conditions. Lincoln was among those.

For Lincoln, Slavery didn’t show up in his Civil War speeches until after a few hundred thousand U.S. soldiers (both sides) were dead over the issue of lobbyists, tariffs, New England corporatism, and secession. Not so glamorous, so he pimped onto slavery… And the U.S. became the only Slave nation to required a civil war / hundreds of thousands of lives to end.

They gave us meat inspection standards…

They codified what legitimate businesses were already doing. Laws passed were political actions promoted as solutions to what was functionally a non-existent problem: contaminated meat. The Act of 1891 was a political action in an environment of massive change in the meat industry – motivated by those who were economically hurt by the massive supply increase of cattle vs. demand, but who further blamed the cost advantages of those who used refrigeration, efficient low cost transportation, and easy distribution. Primarily in Chicago. They demanded Anti Trust action amid false accusations about poor meat quality. Hence, Anti Turst 1890 Sherman Act and the 1891 Meat Inspection Act are tied, and were demanded by CONSERVATIVES AGAINST CHANGE in the meat industry.

As for the 1906 Act, this was partially a political reflex to a populist wave in response to Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle which, which was exposed to be BS, and intended to inspire a socialist workers movement in the U.S. He never witnessed any of the horrors, or

Progressive sounbites only work as soundbites

I’m no republican, but found a post out on politico to to be the usual lame, twisted caricature of anyone against progressive authoritarianism.

The post was a bunch of soundbites directed at the GOP — but applicable to us all, so let’s address. each   Unfortunately, smugness can be one liners, but explanations require detail, so excuse the length.

Let the caricatures begin.

***

The (GOP folks, but you can insert anyone who disagrees with progressives policy here) all…:

“Admire the American farmer but are willing to help him go broke.

Actually, plenty of R’s are big into subsidies for their own states, so this ain’t so accurate. But on farm subsidies, let’s get this straight. U.S. policy on farms is an economic catastrophe, paying people to overproduce some crops, fighting tobacco at one level, while granting subsidies to farm it at others (recall, Dear Leader Al Gore is a gentlemen farmer who benefits); forcing consumers to overpay for some crops, exporting overproduction of others, even giving it away into the 3rd-world, which undermines developing economy markets for agriculture; then we get stupid things like the “ethanol mandate” that is actually worse for the environment and caused economic problems due to the subsidy chasing going on, etc. Then there is the Mosanto protection racket BS that’s all part of the same mechanism.

So, go ahead with the smug one liner and mock others who find this all distasteful as “being against the lil ol’ farmer”. I call BS.

Stand four-square for the American home but not for housing.

Because the housing bubble had nothing to do with massive intervention in the housing market at both the Congressional level or at the monetary policy level from the Fed and our twisted banking cartel system Nor did mandating that people who cannot afford homes should still be qualified for mortgages they don’t have the incomes for is a good thing. Nor did enabling an incompetent bureaucracy filled with political appointees hired expressly to make sure everyone got a mortgage, providing a defacto guarantee on all mortgages (Freddie and Fannie) have anything to do with it.

Yes – being against such short term, feel good lunacy (that buys votes, no doubt) is against “the people”. Dream on.

Are strong for labor but stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

Last I checked, the politically connected are for this.

Certainly big business does not like labor fluidity because they want to have workers stuck who can’t find jobs. Hence, big business is always at the forefront of writing regulation “to protect the people” which always, the shock of all shocks, coincidentally adds tremendous hurdles to entrepreneurial activity that would undermine market positions of the politically connected, which would equal their best employees jumping ship for the opportunity to excel / get paid more / enjoy the profits of creating something more consumer effective at a new job.

But are unions here to save us? Heck NO! They want to carve out their own monopoly on labor at the expense of the consumer who must pay more for the same or (as has been the repeated the case in experience) lower quality product. They don’t want labor fluidity — entrepreneurial job seekers moving around undermining their monopolies in certain industries, so they legislate against freedom of choice for labor.

So you try to make it sound that cutting back on Unionized labor’s monopoly to push others around and prevent freedom of choice is a bad thing?

No wonder unions are so isolated, and progressives so out of touch. Unions are not a solution. They doubled down on the problem of corporatism.

PS – if we all became union, there would be no benefit since everyone’s wages would adjust, and costs would universally go up, and the fraud would be exposed completely.

Favor the minimum wage. The smaller the better.

Nope. Wrong again. Anyone with economic sense understands price fixing of anything creates market distortions and affects prices in other areas. A forced above market minimum wage prices unskilled labor out of the market by putting it at a price above its actual economic output. Unfettered wages are a product of supply and demand of skill sets. To pretend that entry level burger flippers are worth more than they are merely encourages employers to seek alternatives — they fast forward investment into job eliminating machinery, off-shoring, etc. Or they pay a more skilled person with higher output. Does not happen overnight, but such is integrated.

Min wages, however, immediately force consumer to pay more / subsidize the extra wage as prices must go up to account for the increase in labor cost inputs. So they have less disposable income afterward / are poorer for it, as are all the folks who used to get that spending now cut off. Moreover, because min wage is tied to union wage scales, union wages go up (a big secret reason for minimum wage support), further increasing consumer subsidies to protected workers, and hurting those who were part of the previous consumption chain now with less $$ thanks to the new law.

Yes, some will benefit. But this is like me taking money from one person to give it to another. That is good for buying votes, but it is poor economic policy in the long run. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has always been folly, but not to the economically illiterate and desperate voter min wage advocates prey upon.

Endorse equal educational opportunities for all but won’t pay for teachers or schools.

How about teachers getting paid for their quality in an open market exchange of education alternatives?

Oh, I get it. You only want UNION-Government monopolized education, run by politicians for the benefit of the politically connected –e.g. The Education Industrial complex (testing, text books, etc.) and unions. So they can charge $550k per 35 kid classroom which is a typical big union / city run school district cost. ($15k per kid is average, but I’ve seen some cities as high as $18,400 like union heavy City of Pittsburgh).

When you actually put consumer choice choosing and defining quality — rather than unions or twisted politicians — as the chief priority, we can discuss funding education, and perhaps the best charitable method for educating those who cannot afford education vs. pure entitlements.

Think our medical care and hospitals are fine – for people who can afford them.

A system ruined by 75 years + of incremental government intervention, a system of legislated oligopolies and corporatism run rough shod over consumer choice and freedom.

A system that further guarantees that no matter how badly you take care of your body you’re supposed to be entitled to whatever care is necessary to bail you out?

yeah… And Obama-care triples down on that lunacy as a solution?

Let the market do its thing with freedom, and let’s carve out the discussion of handling the charitable needs of those who can’t afford it.

Consider electrical power a great blessing as long as private power companies get their rake-off.

LOL. Government created oligopolies (utilities) are indeed a problem. Of big government politicians killing liberty / choice.

Think the American standard of living is a fine thing as long as it does not spread to all the people.

Oh, I see — 80-years of increased redistributionism and expansionary monetary policy are not to blame for the existing economic malaise.

We’ve been raiding the economic seed-corn of wealth creators who improve the standard of living in this nation and redistributing it for political purposes through both govt. meddling and through Bank Cartel / Fed policy (fractional reserve multiplier effect, etc.). And we do so more and more each year. And now that harvests are coming in leaner and leaner, suggesting famine is on the horizon, your solution is to raid more seed corn?

We were warned extensively of this happening by sound economic folks back when this started and exactly what they warned of (more bubbles of increased volatility, wars financed on debt and money priting, etc.) has come to be.

But keep supporting the same looters, and blame those who want to end it as the problem.

Admire the United States government so much that they want to buy it.”

 

Harry Truman (funny how some things don’t change)

Blah blah blah.