No Choices Come November

I'd love a choice to Ivy-League Obama and his Wall Street Whiz Kids.   Romney Incorporated is more of the same, plus lower taxes on the rich and less regulation of big companies and big markets.  Sanctorum and the Grinch are way out in Nuttsville, USA. 

Legalize Cannabis?

Here be a comment I posted to a letter to the editor of the local newspaper.

Like policemen, prosecutors have a rather limited and jaundiced viewpoint of their fellow humans.

Quite likely, more than a few of Mr. Spears' fellow lawyers and judges, and even prosecutors and policemen, have used and are using marijuana. His experience was with the sad cases, where defendants abused every illegal substance they could get their hands on.

I've never used marijuana, but to me when it comes to harm, marijuana is not in the same league with alcohol and tobacco, which are all too legal to market, sell, possess and use.

And if you talk about gateway drugs, the true gateway drugs are -- alcohol and tobacco.

The drug war is having two significant effects. (1) It has made many Americans criminals, as Robertson says. (2) It has created and feeds a monstrous criminal enterprise that profits on the American appetite for illegal drugs.  

In my opinion, we need to trust and to educate our people to make good choices. We need also to give our own farmers some of the profit available and put as many narcotrafficantes out of business as we can.

The reason why so many dollars go south to profit criminal enterprise is our failed drug policy. Drug laws are little obstacle to the stronger laws of human nature and supply and demand.

Trade Imbalance and Consumer Goods

Economist/conservative columnist Walter E. Williams wrote this week that the trade imbalance is not worth worrying about, since dollars flowing abroad go partly or mostly toward purchases in and from the USA.

I think Williams missed the point, an gave us a faulty analysis.   My own perspective is that the consumption-based economy is destroying us, and a significant part of that viewpoint relates to imported consumer goods.   Here is my response to what Williams wrote:
 
Williams wrote:
"When I spend $100 at the grocery, my capital account (money) goes down by $100, but my goods account (groceries) increases by $100. My grocer’s goods account decreases by $100, while his capital account increases by $100."

But this is not true of consumer purchases in general, and much of what we Americans buy from abroad are consumer purchases.

With consumer purchases, when you spend $100 you get an item that is worth LESS than $100, that you cannot resell for the same amount that you paid for it, even if it is in excellent condition, because it is now used. So your $100 buys consumer stuff you can immediately resell for $80-95.

Virtually NO consumer purchases have a chance to appreciate in value.  Guns 'n' gold excepted, and gold and gems sold to consumers has such a high mark-up that it is useless as a store of value.

When Sony -- to use Williams' example -- buys American stock or American real estate, they are getting an item that may well GAIN in value, not instantly depreciate.  

And so we are like the Indians who sold the Island of Manahatta for $20 in trinkets: exchanging guns for glitter; trading what is genuinely valuable away for junk that gives us brief pleasure but has little other value; or, to look at it another way, buying the contents of next year's Goodwill donation or garage sale.

And so-- we constantly impoverish ourselves, getting the worse of each consumer purchase, because we have an consumption-based economy. Williams may be a good bookkeeper, but he is not an economist.

Flawed Thinking About the Imbalance of Trade

Today in his syndicated op-ed column, Walter E. Williams argues that there is no trade deficit.

Williams wrote:

"When I spend $100 at the grocery, my capital account (money) goes down by $100, but my goods account (groceries) increases by $100. My grocer’s goods account decreases by $100, while his capital account increases by $100."

But this is not true of consumer purchases in general, and much of what we Americans buy from abroad are consumer purchases.

With consumer purchases, when you spend $100 you get an item that is worth LESS than $100, that you cannot resell for the same amount that you paid for it, even if it is in excellent condition, because it is now used.    So your $100 buys consumer stuff you can immediately resell for $80-95.

When Sony -- to use Williams' example -- buys American stock or American real estate, they are getting an item that may well GAIN in value, not instantly depreciate. 

And so we are like the Indians who sold the Island of Manahatta for $20 in trinkets:  exchanging guns for glitter;  trading what is genuinely valuable away for junk that gives us brief pleasure but has little other value; or, to look at it another way, buying the contents of next year's Goodwill donation or garage sale. 

And so-- we constantly impoverish ourselves, getting the worse of each consumer purchase, because we have an consumption-based economy.   Williams may be a good bookkeeper, but he is not an economist.

The Rewards of Low-IQ Campaigning

Nobody ever makes any money or gets elected by betting on the intelligence of the American people. A cerebral rational candidate running a rational campaign always loses.

What counts are baseless accusations repeated often. If a voter hears the same thing often enough, it becomes true whether or not it is.

You never want to confuse voters with facts. Elections are not about facts; they are about emotions and cultivating prejudices.

You pay campaign managers a fortune to identify groups with a beef, or a screw loose, and figure out a way to target them with a message just for them that won't drive away the support of other groups you need.

The most effective tool is the 30 second sound bite. You make a statement and don't have to qualify or explain it, or defend it; just make it and stop. What you say will have more impact on voters than your opponent's long tedious explanation of why your statement is not true.

Are voters today less informed? I think so. One reason is beause we are so barraged with information that we shut out all but the simplest most emphatic messages. The ideal campaign message consists of just one word or phrase.

"Socialist!" was good.

Another good one is "baby-killer." Santorum has been using that. Gingrich. Randy-Neugie. Here's CNN's debunking of the accusation:

"After researching and analyzing the issue, two independent fact-checking groups, Politifact and Factcheck.org both determined it's not true to claim Obama supported legislation that said "any child born prematurely ... can be killed." In fact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact rated the Santorum's assertion "Pants on fire" -- its rating that a statement is "not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."

"Then there's the part of Gingrich's statement that the "elite media" ignored the story in 2008. In fact, a search on Nexis shows at least eight times when it was mentioned or discussed in detail on CNN during the 2008 campaign." From http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/poli ... M:POLITICS

Not that debunking matters. What matters and what is remembered is the accusation. Comprehending the debunking takes too much time and IQ points.

The American Revolution as Class and Economic Struggle

[Under construction]

To an extent that has been under appreciated, the American Revolution involved class and economic considerations.   For example the Regulator Movement of North Carolina.    Quote about a petition drawn up by the Regulators of Anson County, NC:

"in violation of the law restricting the amount of land that might be granted to each person to six hundred and forty acres, much of the most fertile territory in the province had been distributed in large tracts to wealthy landlords. In consequence "great numbers of poor people are necessitated to toil in the cultivation of the bad Lands whereon they hardly can subsist." It was these poor people, "thereby deprived of His Majesties liberality and Bounty," "  http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B866/SouthwestC13.html

Birth Control Politics and Reality

You for or against allowing employees to have the option of health insurance covering contraceptives?

From the point of view of employers and those footing the bill, it sure makes sense to have such coverage. Pregnancy leave and paternity leave complicates the lives of employers, and when it comes to insurance costs, more contraception is preferable to more births.

How about the religious aspect?

Well, sure, if someone doesn't want the coverage they are not forced to get it; neither are birth control pills forced down their throats.  B.C. is optional not mandatory.

So what's the problem?

The only problem I see is that, for HMOs, a Catholic provider would be expected to provide contraceptive prescriptions. How much of a problem is that?

Isn't that a matter of the patient-doctor relationship? Do Catholic hospitals attempt to prevent doctors admitted to practice there from writing prescriptions for birth control pills or devices? Do Catholic hospitals, clinics, doctors and pharmacies have a sign in the window saying "NO contraceptives available here!" I doubt that occurs much in practice. 

How many Catholic doctors refuse to write birth control prescriptions? If they reflect the beliefs and practices of the general Catholic population, not many. The use of birth control is overwhelming among American Catholics as it is.

For the thoughts of the Catholic electorate, see http://content.usatoday.com/communities/....ops-obama-hhs/1

It is interesting that Catholic doctrine in this is controlled by a handful of men who are claimed to be mostly celibate except for the occasional attraction to young boys. It is interesting that one outspoken female voice in support of Catholic doctrine is that of a nun. What could be less detached from reality?

In a test of strength between the Catholic Church and the will of the American people, or even the will of American Catholics, the church loses.