Who is John Galt?

free money

A commenter on YouTube said, in response to this video, "I feel wealthier just for having experienced this."  He's right.

And while it's pretty cheap for me to paste it here for you to see, I'd happily pay a lot more for the honor.  If everyone watched this video, liberalism would be dead.  Now, that's what I call a worthy investment.

impersonating liberals: child's play

First things first.  I said I could do it, so I suppose I should prove it:

The minimum wage is necessary because without it employers would exploit workers, paying them only what they have to; not what the workers are actually worth.  Nobody can live on the minimum wage as it is -- if we don't pay workers more, then how could they ever afford to go to school and better themselves, or even go to a doctor if they got sick?  Without the minimum wage, some workers would only get $2, maybe $3 an hour -- then where would they be?  People have a right to a fair wage, and to be able to afford the most basic necessities and to live with a minimum of dignity. -- John Galt as a liberal

I could probably do that for a while, but it gets less convincing when you overdo it.  This is already a little too much, but I want to make it clear that I, like all of you, am thoroughly familiar with the entire argument.

The liberal pattern is to observe tragedy, conclude that it is unjust, and then demand a law prohibiting that particular injustice.  This pattern has two fundamental flaws.  First, of course, is the matter of justice.  When I consider a person who produces much value, I expect him to be highly compensated.  Accordingly, we should not be surprised to find that people with no skills are very poor.  Impoverished, even. 

We all understand that in order to be more highly compensated ourselves, the usual strategy is to acquire the skills to create more value.  It takes a certain level of skill and productivity to provide all the things we believe every American "deserves," so naturally people who don't produce at least that much are reasonably at risk of living below that standard.  And I'm sorry, but nothing that can be described as "a reasonable expectation" is really an injustice.

masonomics

H/T to Cafe Hayek: You already think this way; Arnold just explains it for you.

how liberals think

So I'm listening to talk radio on the road, and suddenly there's a "public service announcement" from an area area law firm.  The trial lawyer starts off with a tease, telling me "there's something the jury never knows."  I'm all ears: What is this vital fact being withheld from juries, and tainting all their verdicts?

It turns out that juries (or at least juries in some states, anyway) don't know whether defendants have insurance.  I guess that means they don't know how much insurance people have either.  And apparently, this is really frustrating plaintiffs' attorneys, because this guy spent the money to make something of an announcement about it, going so far as to cite the statute that forbids insurance coverage from being disclosed to the jury.

Then, in an effort to reassure prospective jurors in the listening audience, I think the friendly trial lawyer went on to explain how defendants almost always have insurance.  How thoughtful of him to throw that in.  Finally, he closes by telling me that now I know the whole truth.  I even felt smarter.

money is not wealth

I have said this before: When you really understand something, you can verify it by looking at it from different angles.  If you've got it right, there's a consistency between all of the perspectives.  2+2=4.  2*2=4. 2^2=4.  You don't have to understand them all, but if you reach one correct conclusion it will match all of the others, as there is only one reality.  Contradictions do not exist.

There are two kinds of liberals -- Cheats™, and Fools™.  Liberalism does not work.  The Cheats™ know this, but they're not in it to make it work -- they're in it for the power.  They're liberals because they want what liberalism actually achieves: a few elites with totalitarian power over everyone else. 

gravitonomics

Suppose Congress passed an anti-gravity law.  In the interest of saving space on our crowding planet, Americans would be ordered to spend half their time living upside-down on the ceiling.  It would become mandatory to ignore the force of gravity, and illegal to structure our lives solely around right-side-uppedness. 

This would be a beneficial law.  You could have twice as much space in your house.  You could park two cars in one garage, and a two car garage would suddenly accommodate four cars.  Think of all the jobs such a law would create, laying carpet and tile on ceilings, and filling the top of every room with furniture.

chickens and eggs

I'm always amazed by the razor sharp precision with which government calculates just how long unemployment benefits should last.  Somehow the state knows people will be unemployed for exactly 26 weeks, and then like clockwork jobs start becoming available 26 weeks later, at precisely the same time workers the unemployed begin to lose their benefits.  It's uncanny.

Sometimes, when unemployment is really bad, a house of government will make the emergency determination that new jobs are exactly thirteen more weeks out, extending benefits just as a critical mass of workers voters is slated to finish their benefits.  In the nick of time, exactly thirteen more weeks of unemployment is guaranteed, with benefits to match.

I realize most of you don't live in Michigan.  So, Michigan being among the bluest of blue states, with organized labor calling the shots, where card-check ranks right up there with The Second Coming, where "right to work" is a four-letter word, and with the state's every labor policy and corporate tax guided by the divine providence of liberalism, you'll understandably be shocked -- shocked -- to learn that Michigan has been in a one-state recession for as long as eight years now -- I know I was.  Sadly, it's true.

the fair tax

Responding on another post, Gink asked for my thoughts on the Fair Tax.  The Fair Tax is getting a lot of press as we approach April 15th, and its supporters held "tea parties" nationwide this weekend.

The principle behind the income tax is that it's desirable for each worker to produce as much as he can, but that it's necessary for a portion of what is produced to be used to fund government.  So you work for money, and then some of the money you get credit for earning is shaved off, to be spent by the state.  So that the state can use some of your purchasing power to obtain what it needs.  That's the principle.

But the reality is that you don't work for money; you work for the things money can buy.  You produce your daily output for the promise of a share of the goods and services produced by others.  And the government doesn't want your money either -- God knows it could just print money if that was all it wanted.  Like you, the government needs access to a share of the goods.

So with the income tax, you get credited $100 for producing $100 worth of value, but the government takes $20 of it.  You can then buy $80 worth of goods, and the state can buy $20 worth.

The Fair Tax works very similarly: You get the full $100 for producing $100 worth of value, but because of the tax your $100 can only buy $80 worth of goods.  The government uses its cut to buy the other $20 worth of what you produce.

maybe they're asking the wrong question

Rasmussen released some new poll results this week: Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism.  On the bright side, only 20% believe socialism is better, though it's hard be comforted by the idea that 27% can actually be undecided on the matter.

I imagine capitalism's coming down faster in the public eye than socialism is going up, and we may just be heading for the day when the consensus will be that both suck equally.  But even that is unfair to capitalism, since many of the institutions and processes associated with capitalism today -- particularly the aspects that make the most headlines -- are arguably more socialistic than capitalistic in the first place.  It's possible, from a general perception standpoint, that in the race between capitalism and socialism true capitalism is not even represented.

socialism defined

Socialism is the perpetual motion machine of poverty solutions.

In all fairness, while I came to this realization entirely on my own, a Google search shows that there are already some 22,000 matches on 'socialism "perpetual motion"'.

Truly great minds thinking alike do not worry about who thought it first.