It Is All About Monument Building

The City of Chicago is working diligently towards securing the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.  The people with whom I have had conversations about the Olympic Bid have generally fallen into two categories 1) People who are against the Olympics coming to Chicago and cannot understand why there is such a big push to secure the bid and 2) People who genuinely think it will be "good" for Chicago to host the Olympics.

As a fan of the summer Olympics, I do think it would be cool to have the Olympics here in Chicago.  However, the ends do not justify the means, and the means to bringing the Olympics to Chicago is taxation.  Contrary to the belief that hosting the Olympics pays for itself and gives a boost to the economy, host cities use taxation and go deep into debt to finance the games, and we all know that governmental debt means more taxation.  Then, who are the people pushing for the Olympic bid in Chicago, and why are they doing it?

The two groups pushing hard for the Olympics in Chicago are the politicians and the profiteers.  Chicago politicians are as crooked as they come, and they are the ones that benefit the most from any public works project, especially one that is on the scale of building an Olympic village and managing the production.  Politicians also like to build monuments to themselves, and Mayor Richard Daley is about as close to a dictator as we have in the United States.  He likes to provide all sorts of "gifts" to the citizens of Chicago with his name on them, gifts which were paid for through the tax dollars of the most productive citizens of the city.  Next time you want to buy your mother a gift, steal the money out of her wallet to pay for it.  

The other group of cheerleaders for the Chicago Olympic bid are the profiteers, all of Daley's good ol' friends, the contractors, the unions, and most people in the restaurant and hospitality industries.  Most of the people in this group are the kinds of people that would not make as much money as they do if it were not for the fact that the income they receive consists of stolen goods.   To clarify this point, it is important to analyze the claim that such a huge public project like the Olypmics is "good for the economy."  According to the Chicago Sun Times, the Olympic Village is projected to cost $1.1 billion to construct, which means it will probably cost closer to $2.5 billion.  This figure includes only the costs of constructing the village and infrastructure, and does not include all of the other costs associated with the production of the Olympics games.  The cheerleaders say, "Look, that $2.5 billion will go to laborers, suppliers, and contractors.  It will increase employment!"  Yes, that $2.5 billion will increase employment in those sectors, but it will decrease employment in those productive sectors which are footing the bill through their taxes.  "But the Olympics will draw hundreds of thousands of people to the city, and they will shop, get hotel rooms, go to restaurants, buy gifts, which will serve to bolster the economy."  Again, those industries which provide these tourists with goods and services will flourish, temporarily, at the expense of those productive sectors which are footing the bill through their taxes.  

This is an important point, so let us follow this through from the beginning.  The individual companies in a market economy are generally working to maximize profit.  Profit is essentially a measure of the degree to which the aggregate of individual buyers want a product or service compared to all other products or services available to them.  Companies and entrepreneurs are using all data available to them to bring to market the products and services that people want the most.  It is a remarkably efficient process when left alone.  When the local city and state governments step in and say to the profitable companies, "We are going to take money from you via taxes to pay for our new public works project," this money, as stated above, will go to people directly involved in the public works project.  Prior to this money going to the contractors, hoteliers, suppliers, etc., involved in this public works project, those people were already involved in production in some capacity.  The income and profits they were earning were either in equilibrium or tending towards equilibrium with everything else being produced in the economy.  In other words, they were producing just enough, and people were buying just enough of their products.  Now, when money is taken by force from certain companies and given to the people that will be involved in the public works project, the equilibrium has been disrupted and these certain goods and services related to the public works project are produced in a quantity above what the aggregate of people would have consumed for them if they weren't forced to do so through taxes.  This means there will be fewer of the goods and services that people consider more essential compared to the public works project.  

Going back to the case of the Olympics, it is also not true that revenue attributed directly to the Olympics games will more than offset the costs of the entire production.  To put another way, it is not true that Olympics games are profitable.  According to this document from the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, actual revenue from the sales tax spike, sponsorship revenue, sales of food and merchandise, and other miscellaneous revenue equaled approximately $4.2 billion.  Total costs, after factoring in the tax funds used to "offset" the direct costs of the Winter Olympics, were approximately $16 billion.  Therefore, in addition to forcing people to pay for a project they otherwise would not have paid for, the taxpayers are then saddled with a deficit of nearly $12 billion dollars. 

It is important to realize that when the elected officials propose a spending spree which is supposed to be good for "the public", you are most likely not included in their definition of "the public".  Southern slave owners argued that slavery was good for the economy, but you know they did not think of their slaves as being members of that economy and neither did the slaves believe that their slavery was in their own best interest.    

Real Savings, Not Money Pumping, Creates Wealth, Economic Growh, and Jobs

Why Congress Must Stop the Fed's Massive Pumping by Frank Shostak

"If it were possible to lift real economic growth by means of money pumping, world poverty would have been eradicated a long time ago. Real economic growth requires real savings to fund various activities that support and promote it. (Remember that money is just a medium of exchange and cannot grow anything. Money is employed to exchange goods of one wealth generator for the goods of another wealth generator.)"

"Can Ayn Rand Surive The Economic Crisis?" If we are to survive, she had better!

I posted the following in the comments section of the Newsweek article, “Can Ayn Rand Survive The Economic Crisis?” http://www.newsweek.com/id/173514/page/1

 

“Anyone who has actually read any of Ayn Rand's works knows that Alan Greenspan is no Objectivist, and his policies at the Fed were not free market. No one of the "the free market failed" camp seems to want to actually look at the details of the regulations already in place that largely caused the financial meltdown, i.e. The Fed's massive expansion of credit out of thin air, the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to take on risky loans at the point of a gun, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidizing loans to high-risk people. The banks such as AIG that got themselves in trouble were acting on the belief that the Fed would keep the party going by continuing to inflate the money supply. Had the Fed, the CRA, Fannie, and Freddie not done what they did, these banks would not have taken on such risky loans. They would have regulated themselves just fine. When you have the Fed in control of the money supply and can increase it or decrease it at any rate it wishes at any time, how can anyone honestly say that the so-called "freedom" of the banking industry is what caused this mess?

I also find it striking that people denounce Ayn Rand considering the fact that she promoted the idea that YOUR thought and YOUR action is what keeps you alive, that people require freedom to act on their own best judgment, and that free trade is required to expand wealth beyond what anyone person can achieve on his or her own. Anyone against this must be either incapable or unwilling to think and act for his own survival, and wants to make slaves out of those people that can. The beautiful part of Atlas Shrugged is that it demonstrates that the capable men and women can "shrug" off the non-contributing fleas any time they want.”

 

Nobody Saw This Coming? Guess Again.

Peter Schiff has been predicting for years our current economic crisis.  As far as I can ascertain, Schiff is a proponent of the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle originally identified by the late Super-hero economist Ludwig Von Mises.  

Notice the smugness of the other panelists in all of these interviews.  Now, notice the smugness of the same type of people in the news today calling for the Fed and Treasury to inject trillions upon trillions of dollars created out of thin air into the economy.  This is the same policy that got us here in the first place.  Ignorance can serve an excuse for laypeople who haven't educated themselves on economics.  When you reach the level of highly intelligent and educted people in the Press and in Washington, I can't help but conclude that it is pure evil that makes such people advocate stupid policies.  

Comrades, I'm Glad You're Here

I have recently befriended a guy in his early 20's who came to the U.S. over a year ago from Moldova.  He goes by the name Slava.  For those of you a little rusty on your geography, Moldova is a former Soviet Bloc country nestled between Romania and Ukraine.  Moldova declared its independance form the Soviet Union in 1991.  According to Slava, Moldova is still very much a communist country, although the country has undergone many economic reforms since it broke away from the Soviet Union.  

I asked Slava endless questions about his home country, about life there, his education, his work, why he came to the United States, and how he likes the U.S.  As pessimistic as I am about the future of the United States, it is encouraging to hear folks like Slava speak about the opportunities and freedoms in the United States.  Before coming to the United States, Slava worked construction in Moldova, 14 hours a day, for $300 per month.  He said people are very poor there and, although the government hands out money to the commoners, there are no goods to spend the money on.  "What to do with this money?", Slava Said, "To buy shoes in Moldova you wait in long line and it costs $300.  The same shoes here in U.S. cost $50."  "There is nothing you can do in Moldova.  It is too difficult to start a business in Moldova.  The government doesn't let you.  Here in U.S., if you want to do something, you just do it."  

Unfortunately, that is not entirely true of the U.S., but compared to the state of things in Moldova, the U.S. is still a much better option.  That is, if the Moldovan government will let you leave.  "In Moldova, if you want to leave, the government has to give you permission.  Sometimes they give, sometimes they don't."  

I asked Slava what he was taught in school.  "It's communist country, you know?  All they teach is Marx.  F*** Marx.  I don't like Marx."  

I asked Slava what he thought of Americans.  "Americans don't know what they have.  They don't know how good they have it.  I went to 7-11 and a guy sitting outside said 'Give me a quarter'.  I thought, Ok, its just a quarter, I'll give him a quarter.  Then, when I came back outside, the man said 'Give me another quarter.'  I ask him, 'Why I should give you another quarter?'  You just sit here. I not give you another quarter."  Slava was absolutely shocked to come to the United States an encounter able-bodied people just sitting around outside of a store.  The sad thing is, the bum sitting outside of 7-11 all day every day begging for change probably makes more money every month than Slava made working construction in Moldova.  

"Why did you come to the U.S.", I asked Slava.  "I come here because I want to work and make something for myself."  

Isn't that beautiful?  His answer was not, "I come to U.S. because it is rich country and it will give me money, it will give me job."  No.  His answer was, "I want to work and make something for myself."  I said to Slava, "I'm glad you're here."  Slava has had a tough time finding good work here in the United States.  It is only going to get harder for him as our omnipotent government makes the economy worse with its bailouts.  Slava said he wants to drive a truck because he can make good money doing that.  Good money to him is $3,000 per month.  Of course, that is good money, but most Americans wouldn't think so.  Americans believe they are entitled to $60,000 a year minimum for a 40-hour work week, paid vacation, sick days, and health insurance simply for having been born.  Slava would probably have to work 10 hours a day minimum to make $3,000 a month driving a truck, and he wouldn't have paid vacation, sick days, or health insurance.  That doesn't bother him.  He just wants to make his life better, and be free to do so to the extent that he can.  He has seen first hand what happens when taking wealth from people by force and giving it to people who haven't earned it becomes a legal institution.  

I wish more people like Slava would come to the United States.  I wish our country made it easier for them to come here and work.  People like Slava truly understand what it means to be an American much more than most Americans do.  That is saddening, but inspiring at the same time. 

Don't be "Selfish": Take the American Dream by Force

This little blog post over at ABCNEWS.com points out that the essence of Barack Obama's political philosophy is altruism, or the sacrifice of some for the sake of others, and gives a great hat-tip to Ayn Rand's views on selfishness.  

Barack Obama purports to believe in the American Dream, and he believes that living this dream requires forcing some people to pay for whatever other people consider to be the dream. Obama says some people should have the "opportunity" to become rich and live the American Dream, while other people should pay for this opportunity.  What is interesting is the way in which Obama believes people become rich.  Obama does not believe that the rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the protection of private property are what give people the opportunity to live a fulfilling life.  No, Obama believes that when young people have "free" college education, when all people have "free" health care, when you take money from the haves and give it to the haves-less, then everyone becomes rich.  How this is any one's vision of the American Dream is mind-boggling to me.  The government will give you everything it determines you should want, and you will be happy with that.  To Obama, the American Dream no longer means working hard, making sacrifices, and going as far as your own skill, intelligence, and effort will take you.   Obama wants to condemn selfishness as a vice, and promote selflessness as a virtue.  You want your work, your intelligence, your passion to ultimately benefit yourself?  PSShtt. You evil, selfish person!  Obama has no concept of how wealth is produced, why it is produced, nor what the concept of selfishness actually means and why it matters.  

Obama sees people as generally falling into two categories: victims and thieves.  Obama believes people who generally work for wages are victims.  The people in this group would have things like infinite quality health care, infinite quality education, free gasoline, large houses, phones and TVs, if the thieves didn't "steal" their labor for their own selfish gains.  The thieves, on the other hand, have more than their fair share.  They have large houses, cars, savings, and presumably better educations, not because the things they offer to society are valuable to a larger number of people than what the average person offers, but because they are greedy and selfish and have "stolen" too much from everyone else.  Therefore, it is necessary for the government, supported by those who feel robbed, to steal back from the rich and give it to the poor.  Then everyone will be free to enjoy the American Dream once all wealth is equally distributed.  Everyone will take comfort in being unselfish through never being able to improve their own state of being because not everyone else may be able to improve their well being to the same degree.  Any reasonable person should be able to understand how the standard of living that did exist for each person will quickly disappear when each individual is no longer allowed to set the price, terms, and conditions for his knowledge and abilities.  

Contrast Obama's view of selfishness with that of Ayn Rand, who wrote the following in The Virtue of Selfishness:

The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required forhuman survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rationalinterests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.

The idea that people are entitled to an "American Dream" makes me wonder what advocates of such "unselfish" ideals would do if they were stranded on a deserted island.  Would they curse the sky for not showering milk upon them?  Would they curse the fish for not walking onto the shore and placing themselves into the fire?  Would they curse the trees for not shedding off lumber (which assembles itself into shelter)?  I suppose they would curse God for not providing Eden, or for not having created him with pre-existing knowledge about how to survive. Perhaps "unselfish" people may put forth the effort to survive to some extent, learn how to catch or grow food, and build shelter, but they may still curse the universe because they somehow deserve a mansion, health care, and a risk-free world.  The universe is so selfish.  

The purpose of the desert island example is to isolate the fact that as human beings, our survival depends upon our own thought, action, and desire to live.  This example also points out what selfishness truly means: it means to have concern for and to act in accordance with one's own well being.  As Ayn Rand points out in her book The Virtue of Selfishness, the concept of selfishness does not tell us what in fact is in our best interest, it simply describes whom our actions are ultimately intended to benefit.  If Obama's views were taken to their logical extreme, then a person stranded on a deserted island should really just kill himself, because he has no purpose in life without the existence of other people to provide for (or he may suggest you kill yourself for the starving vultures).  

So why is it that having access and exposure to other people within a society that makes living for one's own well being a vice? If a person had a choice between subsisting on a deserted island or living in a free society, it would certainly be in the interests of a person's long-term survival to choose a free society.  It is not because other people can become one's slave that makes living in society beneficial.  The benefit of society is such that a person acting for his own interests has the option to voluntarily trade his skills, knowledge, and labor with other people acting in their own interests for mutual trade to mutual gain.  

Society allows for specialization and efficiency in the production of goods and services that improve man's living conditions.  Even a person vastly superior than everyone else in terms of intelligence and ability is made better off by trading with people of lesser intelligence and ability. Conversely, a person with comparatively lower intelligence and ability is made better off by trading his labor for food, clothing, and shelter with people comparatively more intelligent and productive than he is.  

For example, let's say a person spent many years on a deserted island and managed to survive quite well.  Then imagine that this person built a crude boat and decided to cast himself off into the ocean.  If the conditions were just right, assume this person will eventually land upon the shores of a highly advanced civilization, complete with skyscrapers, agriculture, and advanced technologies of which this man could not have ever dreamed.  If the intent of the island man was to discover a less hostile environment than the island on which he had been living, could anyone really disagree that his life was made better off by landing on the shores of an advanced civilization?  Aside from language barriers and the absence of knowledge of social customs, the value of this person's labor to himself will increase exponentially due to the existence of trade, specialization, and everyone acting in their own selfish interest.  While the shipped-wrecked individual may not know what to do once he arrives, many other people in society would likely be willing to put him to work because the cost of his labor would be negligible to them in comparison to the returns.   I should not fail to mention that the island man's labor would be negligible in comparison to his returns over the returns on his labor on a desert island.  

Why should the ship-wrecked individual care that everyone else in this new society already has large houses, shoes, tables, cars, phones, etc., when he didn't have any of those things to begin with, and couldn't have achieved any of those things on his own?  Why should he care that he cannot easily afford open heart surgery, when even an infection from a cut was a tremendous ordeal for him before?  Over time, this individual will have clothing, food, and shelter at a level which may seem crude by the majority of society's standards, but which are luxurious by the standards he existed with on a deserted island.  

Someone may then ask, "If someone finds himself significantly poorer than some members of society, would it not be in his interests to, through whatever available means, force others to give up some of their hard earned wealth?"  The answer is no.  Such an individual that wishes to live through the sacrifice of others can have no self-respect and can only live in constant anxiety.  He is admitting to himself that he is incapable of producing anything of value in an effort to further his life.  He views others as having mastery over his life even though he is trying to be master over them.  He begins to think that the intelligence of others is actually a threat to his own survival. Here is an excerpt from Ayn Rand's book The Virtue of Selfishness which states this idea succinctly:

There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no conceptof a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.

If Barack Obama truly wants all boats to rise, then he should promote the idea that every individual is an autonomous being and has the right to live and work for his own well being, and he should fight for the protection of property rights.  When each individual begins to have respect for his own long-term survival, and respects all others' right to do the same, only then will all boats rise.  

Fire or Knife?

A recent episode of the TV show "Sons of Anarchy" got me thinking about why I will not be voting for either of the front running presidential candidates in the upcoming election.  "Sons of Anarchy", on the FX channel, is about a fictional motorcycle gang based in Northern California.  An episode which aired several weeks ago revolved around a guy who was kicked out of the gang for turning his back on another gang member during a robbery.  I can’t remember the disgraced gang member’s name, so we’ll call him Dude.  Dude was kicked out of the gang and, to add to his punishment, was told to black-out the Sons of Anarchy tattoo that he had on his back.  Sometime later, perhaps several years, the Sons of Anarchy gang discovered that Dude still had his SoA tattoo.   

Dude came crawling back to the gang, pleading to let him back into the gang because, as he claimed, it was all he had in life.  The gang survives through theft and murder of innocent people, and Dude believed that this was his only means of survival.  Dude made a peace offering to the Sons of Anarchy, telling them that he had a scheme that would bring in a lot of cash and he wanted to include the Sons in on it.  The Sons brought Dude to their hide-out to let him plead his case.  Talking over a few drinks, the Sons acted forgiving, and made Dude feel comfortable so that he would freely give them the information he had.  He proceeded to do so.  

After disclosing the details about the scheme he had to bring in money, the Sons tricked Dude to follow them into the garage to look at a sexy chopper that he would surely appreciate.  Once in the garage, the Sons surrounded Dude, and forced him to take off his shirt, revealing the Sons of Anarchy tattoo which he was supposed to have blackened out.  Dude begged and pleaded to the gang, sobbing "Please, this is all I have.  I couldn't get rid of it."  In a matter of fact grumble, the leader of the Sons asked, "Fire or knife?"  This meant that Dude had a choice; he could either have his tattoo cut off or burned off by the other gang members.  What a just and democratic gang members these be!  The disgraced Dude chose "fire", and the gang members strapped him up and used a blowtorch to burn his entire back.  In spite of the awful choices presented to him, you might say that the gang member chose what he considered to be the lesser of two evils presented to him.  

You might argue that Dude reaped what he sowed, by choosing a life of crime and murder.  It was that choice that inevitably led him to the choice of "Fire or knife".  Of course, Dude could have chosen not to join a gang in the first place, and to live an honest and productive life to the best of his ability.  Then someone may argue, "But, what if he didn't have any choice but to join a gang?"  "Perhaps he lived in an area where the gangs were the most powerful force around? Or, perhaps he was poor and they offered to take care of him."  Perhaps.  But he still had a choice.  Dude could have chosen to stand up and say, "This is wrong.  This is not how we human beings should cooperate with each other, by ganging up to loot from others.  Not one of us can truly survive in the long run in a gang."  Dude’s choice to join the gang eventually led to the choice of "Fire or knife."  

Wouldn't Dude possibly be risking his life by refusing to join a gang and speaking out against them?  Not necessarily, but joining the gang will DEFINTELY lead to his destruction.  By standing up and voting against joining a gang, perhaps others would too.  Perhaps the balance of power would shift from gangs who believed that survival comes from looting and murder, to a coalition that believed that physical force should be outlawed and that voluntary cooperation and trade to mutual advantage is better for every individual.  

I am sorry that this is a bit allegorical, but that is the choice that I am making by not voting for either of the front running candidates this election day.  Both candidates represent the idea that gang life is the way of life, except they feel a sense of grandeur about it because their brand of looting and destruction is labeled “legal.”   Take John McCain for example, the Presidential candidate for the Republican party.  Republicans stand for free markets, right?  On John McCain's Website, it says McCain "will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers."   How does a government create jobs?  Governments, by their very nature, do not create anything.   Governments can only spend money, which they have taken either by the threat of physical seizure of property or putting you in jail, or governments print money, which lowers your real income and wealth.  Sure, new jobs would be created in whatever the government spends money on, but it comes at the expense of jobs that already existed somewhere else in the economy.  The government will decide how it spends the fruits of your labor, even influence what you will do for a living and what you won't do for a living.  It comes down to the government spending your labor and money on things that you do not want because they come at the expense of the things that YOU would have chosen to spend them on.  Fire or knife?  

In regards to healthcare, John McCain's website says, "John McCain believes that we can achieve savings in Medicare without reducing benefits or eligibility. He has proposed common-sense reforms that will not only put Medicare on a path of financial stability but ensure access to quality care for millions of Americans."  How does the government ensure access to quality healthcare for millions of Americans?  There are some people that do not believe that they are responsible for providing for their own well being, especially when it comes to health care.  These people do not believe that they should have to work hard, save money, and ration their earnings to account for health emergenies (or even non-emergencies).  These people believe that they are owed healthcare, to any extent, in exchange for having simply been born.  This means that some people have the right to healthcare, while other people have the obligation to provide it.  What this inevitably leads to is even less healthcare at even less quality.  For an explanation of this, see here.  Sooner or later, the proponents of socialized or subsidized healthcare will be offered two options when they need a kidney transplant: wait in line for a kidney for 12 months, suffering and assuredly not surviving that long, or euthenasia to end the suffering now.  Fire or knife?

I am picking on John McCain because to most people it is obvious that Barack Obama stands for taking from some people to give to others.  Some people believe that John McCain stands for capitalism, i.e. freedom and individual rights.  It is not true.  John McCain voted for the egregious financial bailout plan which puts money in the pockets of failed crony "capitalists" and aims to prevent some people from losing their homes (i.e., preventing them from having to cut back on their expenses on I-phones, big screen TV's, SUV's, or, gasp, moving into an apartment where sons Tommy and Joey may have to share a room.  Oh the humanity!).  Meanwhile, the end result of such a bailout, and the continued monetary inflation perpetrated by the Federal Reserve, will lead to an even larger bubble in a few years and to massive inflation on those consumer's goods that people really need, like food.  Fire or knife?  

Choosing either gang, represented by John McCain or Barack Obama, will eventually lead to being asked the question, "Fire or knife?"  I abstain from voting for that, but I do so vocally, outside of the gangs’ corrupted voting mechanism.  I vote for freedom and individual rights, which isn't even allowed as a write-in on those gang ballots.   My ballot is the ear of anyone who will listen. 

P.S. George Carlin has a great bit on voting here.  If you are offended by vulgar language, don't watch this.