Government out of control

February 9, 2016

EPA Seeks to Prohibit Conversion of Vehicles Into Racecars

https://www.sema.org/news/2016/02/08/epa-seeks-to-prohibit-conversion-of-vehicles-into-racecars

This is what happens when bureaucracy runs out of things to do, they up the ante, completely unaware of how ridiculous they look or how pointless the idea is.

Top 5 Economic Fallacies

February 9, 2016

What is the most ridiculous economic fallacy that is believed by a significant number of professional economists?

Wow.  Good question.  There are many such fallacies, and it’s difficult to rank-order them according to their ridiculousness.  My list and rank-ordering, of course, reflects my own understanding of economics (which is Austrian) and my subjective assessment of ridiculousness.  But this question is fun, so here’s a list of five:

(5) the idea that government-subsidized health care will lower the cost of health care;

(4) the notion that government must have monopoly control over the money supply in order to ensure sound performance of the economy;

(3) the belief that large differences among people in monetary incomes or monetary wealth reflect some market failure that ought to be ‘addressed’ by the state;

(2) the blind faith that government officials in democratic societies can be trusted to exercise power over people who economists do not trust to make choices for themselves;

(1) the notion that the minimum wage is, or can practically be, a boon to all low-skilled workers.

Each of these notions reflects not only an ignorance of history but also an utter failure to grasp basic price theory

Keynes vs Hayek

February 9, 2016

A comment by Josef Šíma, president of CEVRO Institute, Prague neatly explained the difference between Keynesian and Hayekian economic thinking.

People often consider economic knowledge to be utterly theoretical with no direct practical implication for current economic policies. Can we somehow see the importance of the mainstream/mainline distinction when debating economic crises (such as the recent financial crisis) or current regulatory policies?

I will be brief after having gone on so long in the first answer, but ultimately the answer is unequivocally YES. The relevance of the distinction comes up in the most general terms about as I said above the veracity with which one believes the claims about the self-regulating properties of the private property market economy. But it gets even more detailed in debates such as that between “spenders” versus “savers” in the recovery phase of an economic downturn, as well as to whether the “cause” of the downturn is some “aggregate demand failure” or due to “price distortions” brought on by the manipulation of money and credit and impediments to smooth market adjustments to the previous pattern of errors. It was Adam Smith who warned about the consequences of the “juggling tricks” that governments – ancient as well as modern – rely on and that juggling trick is deficit finance resulting in accumulated public debt which in turn is ‘paid off’ through debasement of the currency. If the juggling gets out of hand, Smith warned, it is an economy killer. This is what economists believed from Adam Smith to F. A. Hayek and James Buchanan. The advice was straight forward – STOP THE JUGGLING. Keynes changed that, and his advice – LEARN TO BE A MASTER JUGGLER.

Cotton Candy

February 3, 2016
I’ve often been accused of viewing ordinary people with contempt. It causes me to ask: What could possibly give an obviously intelligent person that notion?
 
I think I have the answer – one that goes further than my previous replies.
 
The answer is that I am very critical of the opinions that most non-economists (and many economists) express about economics and economic matters.
 
It’s true that I do hold in very low regard – in, indeed, contempt – the “economics” expressed by many non-economists and by the politicians and pundits who cater to economic ignorance.
 
But this fact does not mean that I regard these people to be stupid or unable individually to tend properly and prudently to each of their own individual affairs.
 
I criticize such people in the same way that, I’m sure, an experienced engineer would criticize people who, seeking a way to allow motorists to get back and forth across the Mississippi river, propose to build a bridge made only of cotton candy. And just as the engineer would no doubt amplify the volume of his protests if the clamoring for such a cotton-candy bridge grew loud and began to display a real prospect for being taken seriously, I amplify the volume of my protests when similarly fanciful and unscientific notions – such as making us wealthier with tariffs or with minimum wages or by wealth redistribution – grow loud and display a real prospect for being taken seriously.
 
It is ungenerous – or, certainly, erroneous – to accuse someone who is an expert in X of thinking that those who know nothing of X, yet who express opinions about X, are contemptible. These expressed opinions about X are typically mistaken, and in many cases even contemptible. They are contemptible because such erroneous opinions directly threaten the freedom of everyone so subject to these opinions.
 
They become a public nuisance when politicians secure power by professing to share these mistaken opinions. It is, therefore, appropriate for someone who knows better to explain that those opinions are flawed. And if those opinions continue to be stubbornly held in ways that threaten to generate outcomes quite the opposite of the outcomes expected by those who profess those mistaken opinions, it is appropriate for a knowledgeable person to amplify his or her reasons for rejecting those opinions.
 
But, surely, just as no one would think the engineer to be arrogant or haughty if he continues to explain why a cotton-candy bridge will not support automobile traffic, no one should think the economist to be arrogant or haughty if he continues to explain why, say, tariffs do not create jobs or raise wages generally, or why the minimum wage will reduce low-skilled workers’ employment options. Yet no more should it be inferred from the economist’s protests that he views ordinary people with contempt than it should be inferred from the engineer’s protest that he views ordinary people with contempt.

BF now an IPCC Expert Reviewer

December 16, 2011
I applied to become an expert reviewer for the IPCC's next assessment report, 
specifically for Chapter 9 on Climate Modeling.

Here is my Letter:

Dear [Black Flag],

The IPCC Working Group I (WGI) Co-Chairs are pleased to announce the
Expert Review of the First Order Draft (FOD) of the WGI contribution
to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis (AR5) and invite you to serve as an Expert Reviewer. An
invitation letter is available from
https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/PDFs/WGIAR5_ExpertReview_InvitationLetter.pdf
and may be accessed using your individual username and password:

User name: [Black Flag email]
Password: ********

This username and password pair is personalized for you and may not
be shared. Your username and password will be required to access the
WGI AR5 FOD Chapters and to submit a review. The drafts, review form,
and additional supporting material are available from the WGI AR5 FOD
Expert Review website:

https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/

Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.

The WGI AR5 Expert Review of the FOD will run from 16 December 2011
to 10 February 2012. All comments must be submitted through the above
website by the close of the Expert Review on 10 February 2012. 

Thank you in advance for providing a review of the WGI AR5 FOD.

Best regards,
IPCC WGI TSU
on behalf of the WGI Co-Chairs

------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Working Group I Technical Support Unit - IT   wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
University of Bern                           ph:  +41 31 631 56 18
Zaehringerstrasse 25                         fx:  +41 31 631 56 15
3012 Bern, Switzerland                           www.ipcc.unibe.ch
------------------------------------------------------------------

Bizarro World, Censorship and Cowards

November 22, 2011

The ongoing feud between myself and “Ed” has culminated in what appears to be a full block.

He had hid behind the “oh, it’s a spam filter” excuse. But now, it’s is just out and out blocking.

It appears unless someone aligns with Ed’s Bizarro World, you will be -eventually- banned

Sadly, he is also a coward.

I had offered many times to leave, if he found my arguments too disturbing for his zealot horde.

But he doesn’t have the guts to post that.

It would ruin his image as a “tolerant socialist” – as if such a beast ever existed.

Wind power – Gone with the Wind

November 20, 2011

A big deal was made by another blogger regarding Texas brown-outs and wind power – how “wind turbines saved Texas”.

 

Of course, they didn’t – but that story is on his blog.

 

Part of the side story, however, was a claim about the growing popularity of “Greenie” power – however, recent news actually highlights a signficant reverse of such popularity.

 

Wind turbines operate at the newly-built Capital Wind Farm near Tarago, about 35 kilometres (22 miles) north of Canberra October 30, 2009. REUTERS/Tim Wimborne

Dutch fall out of love with windmills

 

….Dutch government says offshore wind power is too expensive and that it cannot afford to subsidize the entire cost of 18 cents per kilowatt hour — some 4.5 billion euros last year.

 

 

And not to be out done the Duke of Windor said:

Wind farms are useless, says Duke

 

An industry that needs a subsidy to live, will die without it.

Economics is the mother of Politics – and as Economics flexes its dominating muscle, the Politics of Greenie energy will be shrugged aside.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-dutch-wind-idUSTRE7AF1JM20111116


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-philip/8901985/Wind-farms-are-useless-says-Duke.html

If heard the “1%” chitchat before, you have….

November 19, 2011

Huey Long – an oratorical genius – back in 1930 proclaimed the Socialists ideas that are being repeated on Wall Street today.

 

FDR took many of Long’s “ideas” and turned them into the New Deal.

 

Listen carefully to Long and his speech – and see how simple the message and how easy the message resonates with the emotions of People – and in direct contradiction to human rights and reason.

 

There are many, many more Huey Long’s alive out there today (Hi, Charlie!) — and free men better start getting their message tuned to defeat them, otherwise the People will face a very long age of Endarkenment.

 

Since I being censored…..

November 18, 2011

Here are some of the posts, and my censored replies – you judge, argue or complain!

 

  1. James,

    We both live in reality.

    The difference is the way we chose to live.

    You justify evil.

    I do not.

  2. Jim wrote:
    With Herman Cain, Willard Romney, Newt Getrich and Ayn Rand — I say to you, Nick ::: QUIT WHINING!

    Well Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newty boy and pretty much the entire Republican party and BF can kiss my ass :P

    I like living in reality. BF can live in delusion land all he wants.

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Jim,

    Your irrational world view disguises ignorance.

    Compassion for your fellow man does not allow you to steal from other men to solve it.

    You believe free men must be essentially without compassion – which can only infer you believe tyrants are the only compassionate men on Earth.

  4. Jim says:

    Nick,

    You obviously don’t understand true compassion. True compassion allows people to die in extermination camps, in bowels of slave ships, on Indian reservations and in unregulated urban sweatshops. Because one day, the Libertarian Leprechauns will sprinkle magic free market fairy dust all over everyone and we’ll all just stop being mean to each other when we realize there is money to be made being nice.

    Monsanto will eventually stop poisoning the born and unborn children of Anniston, Alabama. Just as soon as those evil bullies and liberals stop persecuting the poor, oppressed billionaire CEOs.

    Massey Energy will eventually have safe coal mines, just as soon as left wing do-gooders like me stop insisting that they observe safety regulations and start treating their employees like something other than inanimate tools.

    As for the hundreds of millions who died waiting for the Libertarian Easter Bunny, screw ‘em. God needs to thin the weak from the herd anyway. If you die for lack of medical care, it’s because you were lazy and weak. If you can’t go out and look for a job because you have no legs and can’t afford a wheelchair, well shame on you you selfish bastard. Because a REAL ‘Murrican would crawl door to door offering to mop the floor of some wealthy person’s home with a mop attachment on his face in exchange for a few pennies and a baloney sandwich.

    With Herman Cain, Willard Romney, Newt Getrich and Ayn Rand — I say to you, Nick ::: QUIT WHINING!

    Yes Nick, what i just channeled for you is real compassion on Planet Rand. The real tyrants are the ones who advocate crazed, self-centered ideas like forming a more perfect union, promoting the general welfare and so on. The real tyrants are those who share and expect others to share. The real criminals are those who just don’t have faith enough to believe Ayn Rand and her elves will come…if only we behave ourselves, keep hoarding and looking out for number one.

    Have you not been paying attention?

Economics – the most severe lack of understanding in Modern History

November 18, 2011

A few past posts have highlighted the intensity of the lack of Economic understanding that dominates society.

 

A series of comments, such as “kids are not widgets, teachers are not factory workers” betrays the serious and critical misunderstanding of Economics.

 

To these people, “Economics means money” – so their little retort is really saying “My kids are priceless”. Well, that may be – that is a value judgement worthy of an individual.

 

But what these people do not understand is that “their kids are not NECESSARILY priceless TO ME” – my kid happen to hold that spot.

 

So each of us hold a different value on the same kid – his is higher on his kid than I place on his kid. Misunderstanding this makes the other person believe that there can be no limit to the cost TO ME about educating HIS KID.

 

But of course there is – because my kid needs my resources to educate her. Taking my resources to educate his kid steals it from my kid.

But he does not understand that, since he holds an EGO-CENTRIC world view – that is, the whole world revolves around his position exclusive to any other. So it matters not how his demand impacts the opportunity for others, his demand is holy and any resistance in unholy.

 

Economics is NOT about money. It is about human action.

Money is a consequence of trade.

Money allows us to price value

 

It does not make something valued.

 

Something valued by one person does not mean it is valued by another.

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.