A Socratic Dialogue on The Minimum Wage

Lawrence W. Reed of the Foundation For Economic Education (God, wouldn't the world be better if Obama had taken some online courses there) has reared back and thrown out a gem of a post about the minimum wage. 

It's in the form of a Socratic Dialogue. 

I try to do this on Facebook all the time, with varying degrees of success, mostly because my FB friends get pissed and declare that I don't care about poor people and then the dialogue ends when I point out that they don't pay people a freakin' dime more than they have to because I've watched how they tip their bartenders and then we all unfriend each other. 

I'm scraping the whole thing here, just in case the FEE website goes bankrupt or something.  This thing mirrors so many conversations and blog entries I've written on this dismal subject, but does it so much better. 

Socrates: So you want to raise the minimum wage. Why?

Congressman: Because as President Obama says, minimum wage workers haven’t had a raise in five years.

Socrates: Can you name one single worker who was making $7.25 five years ago who is still making $7.25 today? And if you can’t, then please tell me what caused their wage to rise if Congress didn’t do it. Come on, can you name just one?

Congressman: I don’t happen to have a name on me, but they must be out there somewhere.

Socrates: Well, we’ve just been through a deep recession because successive administrations from both parties, plus you lawmakers and your friends at the Fed, created a massive bubble and jawboned banks to extend easy credit. The bust forced many businesses to cut back or close. Now we have the weakest recovery in decades as ever-higher taxes, regulations, and Obamacare stifle growth. No wonder people are hurting! Do you take any responsibility for that, or do you just issue decrees that salve your guilty conscience?

Congressman: That’s water over the dam. I’m looking to the future.

Socrates: But how can you see even six months into a murky future when you refuse to look into the much clearer and more recent past? You guys think the world starts when a problem arises, as if you’re incapable of analyzing the problem’s origin. Maybe that’s why you rarely solve a problem; you just set everybody up to repeat it. If you really look to the future, then why didn’t you see this situation coming?

Congressman: Look, in any event, $7.25 just isn’t enough for anybody to live on. Workers must have more to meet their basic needs.

Socrates: An employer doesn’t have anything to pay an employee except what he first gets from paying customers. I wonder, whose "needs" do you consider when you decide to buy or not to buy: the workers’ or your own? Have you ever offered to pay more than the asking price just to help out the guy who made the product? And if customers like you won’t do that, where do you expect the employer to get the money?

Congressman: That’s not a fair question. My intent here is purely to help.

Socrates: Sounds to me like the answer is "no," but let’s move on. Why do you assume your intentions mean more to a worker than those of his employer? It’s the employer who’s taking the risk to offer him a job, not you. You’re only making speeches about it. Don’t you see a little hypocrisy here—you, who are personally offering no one a job, self-righteously criticizing others who are actually creating jobs and paying wages even if they’re not all at a wage you like?

Congressman: Employers are interested only in profits.

Socrates: Are you saying employees are not? Are they more interested in working for companies that lose money, and if so, then why don’t they all line up for government jobs?

Congressman: Well, we lose money here in government every year and there are plenty of people who are happy to work for us.

Socrates: You have a printing press. You also have a legal monopoly on force. When you borrow in the capital markets, you shove yourself to the head of the line at everybody else’s expense. Are you saying these are good things and that we’d be better off if the private sector could do these things too? Try to keep up with me here.

Congressman: I repeat, employers are interested only in profits. People before profits, I say! I even have a bumper sticker on my car that says that.

Socrates: So are you saying that employers would be better people if, instead of seeking profits, they tried to break even or run at a loss? How does that add value to the economy or encourage risk-takers to start a business in the first place?

Congressman: You’re trying to belittle me but I went to a state university. All of my sociology, political science and gender studies professors told us that raising the minimum wage is good.

Socrates: Were any of those tenured, insulated, and government-funded pontificators actual job-creating, payroll tax-paying entrepreneurs themselves, ever?

Congressman: That’s beside the point.

Socrates: (Sigh.) Figures.

Congressman: Look, $10.10 isn’t much. I think you must be mean-spirited and greedy if you don’t want people to be paid at least $10.10.

Socrates: Yeah, like you guys in government check your personal ambitions at the door when you take office. I’d like to know how you arrived at that number. Was it some sophisticated equation, divine revelation or toss of the dice? Why didn’t you choose $20.00, which is not only a nice round number but also a lot more generous?

Congressman: Well, $20.00 would be too high, for sure. Too much of a jump at once.

Socrates: It sounds like you think the cost of labor might indeed affect the demand for it. Good! That’s progress. You’re not as oblivious about market forces as I thought. What I want to know is why you apparently don’t think higher labor costs matter when you raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10. Do you think everyone, regardless of skill level or experience, is automatically worth what Congress decrees? Do you believe in magic, too? How about tooth fairies?

Congressman: Now hold on a minute. I’m for the worker here.

Socrates: Then why on earth would you favor a law that says if a worker can’t find a job that pays at least $10.10 per hour, he’s not allowed to work?

Congressman: I’m not saying he can’t work! I’m saying he can’t be paid less than $10.10!

Socrates: I thought we were making progress, but perhaps not. Can you tell me, if your scheme becomes law, what happens to a worker whose labor is worth only, say, $8.10 because of his low skills, lack of education, scant experience, or a low demand for the work itself? Will employers happily employ him anyway and take a $2.00 loss for every hour he’s on the job?

Congressman: Businesses need workers and $2.00 isn’t much, so common sense and decency would suggest that of course they would.

Socrates: So employers who employ people are too greedy to pay $10.10 unless they’re ordered to, but then when Congress acts, they suddenly become generous enough to hire people at a loss. Who was your logic instructor?

Congressman: Can we hurry this up? I’ve got other plans for other people I have to think about.

Socrates: I give up. You congressmen are incorrigible. You’re the only people on whom my teaching method has no discernible impact.

Congressman: You ask too many questions.

At this point, in utter frustration, Socrates drinks the hemlock. The congressman votes to price many of the nation’s most vulnerable employees out of work and gets reelected.
Whoever warned us to beware of Greeks bearing gifts apparently never met a congressman.



 

Are there any major problems not caused by government?

Gallup periodically surveys Americans about the worst problems facing the nation.  They divide the questions between economic and social issues. 

Here are the top economic concerns. 

Let's start at the top.  What caused our current economic doldrums?  Was it the policies of Bush or Obama?  Or does it go all the way back to Alexander Freakin' Hamilton wanting a strong central bank?  For today's purposes, let's say that the economic slump was caused by government. 

Number two on the list is our staggering debt level.  Which organization caused the Federal debt?  Starbucks?  The Koch brothers?  Wal-Mart?  Fox News?  Nope.  The government. 

Number three is unemployment and jobs.  If there were no minimum wage, all labor markets would clear.  There would be something for everyone to do, with the exception of the handicapped, disabled, and Keynesian economists.  Prices for everything would drop.  It happens that way with every other commodity, and labor is no exception. 

Number four.  Lack of money?  Hell, Ben Bernanke is print another 65 billion dollars every month !! There's plenty of money!!  Perhaps those surveyed meant that money their money is now worth less and less, a problem caused by the Federal Reserve.  Or maybe they intended to say that they don't have enough money to buy certain things whose prices have skyrocketed.  Same crime, same perpetrator. 

Taxes?  That problem isn't caused by the Lions Club. 

Wage issues are usually a personal problem, not a problem necessarily caused by Washington.  There is no alternative universe where low-skilled labor is valued as much as high-skilled labor.  However, the Teleprompter Jesus and his disciples are now lobbying for a minimum wage increase that will price even more low-skilled labor out of the market.  That will make "wage issues" even more of a problem caused by government.  I know that if Obama works hard enough, he can eventually make this worse.   

There is a significant gap between the rich and poor, and it will continue to grow.  100 years ago, most of your customers, my customers, Bill Gates' customers and my readers lived within a few miles of you, me and Bill Gates.  We now reach the world.  If you're the best at what you do, the world is your oyster.  (I'm not the best, but Gates is, and you might be.)  However, there is another group of the wealthy that prospers because of theft.  15 of the 22 wealthiest counties in the US are those surrounding Washington D.C.   

Corporate corruption is not a problem caused by government.  However, government spends a fortune regulating corporations, policing the stock market, and such.  I can't think of a single episode where, say, the Securities and Exchange Commission stepped in ahead of time and prevented a Lehman Brothers or Bernie Madoff debacle. 

The others aren't enough of a concern to justify comment.  But I have to sound off on the "trade deficit".  For the 10,000th time, the trade deficit is a bogus number.  If we buy cars from Japan, we give them dollars.  They use these dollars to buy wheat.  When Japan buys wheat from the USA, they give us yen.  We use those yen to purchase cars.  It is balanced.  Nobody's ledger is in a deficit.  (There is something called the "current accounts deficit" which occurs when your politicians concern themselves with producing voters instead of goods and services.  Different problem.) 

Here are our top social concerns:

IMHO, the only two categories on this list that aren't caused by Uncle Sam are "Ethical/Moral Decline" and "Lack Of Respect For Each Other". 

Let's look at those two a little closer - moral decline and lack of respect.  Imagine a grocery store that short-changes its customers.  One where the meat goes rancid within two days of sale.  Dream up a grocery store that routinely pays employees for only 39 hours of a 45-hour week.  How long would that grocery store be in business? 

It would close within a few months.  No government intervention would be necessary.  Word gets out.  You have to respect your customers, your vendors, your employees - those who purchase your merchandise, provide your merchandise, and those whose labor your trade for.  Otherwise, you will go under.  That's how and why our various moral and ethical systems have evolved. 

Next, imagine a president who routinely lies about his policies and his intentions. 

Would you purchase anything this man is selling? 

Very few other people would buy his crap either. 

Fox News has published a different survey suggesting that "dysfunctional government" is the number one concern in the nation. 
I don't know how this is possible.
It seems that our biggest problems are caused when our government functions perfectly and can get things done.   

Canada has a lottery to determine who gets to see the local doctor

Here's some good stuff about Canada's healthcare system, and I can't believe that Republicans didn't make more of it during the ObamaCare enactment tragedy of several years ago. 

All of the "civilized" nations have universal healthcare, right? 

It seems that Canada has a doctor shortage.  Canada's healthcare system is run by the government. 

To quote the great Milton Friedman,  "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand."  That probably applies on both sides of the U.S. northern border. 

There are places in Canada that have a freakin' lottery to determine who gets to have a family doctor. 

There are places in Canada that have a freakin' lottery to determine who gets to have a family doctor.

There are places in Canada that have a freakin' lottery to determine who gets to have a family doctor.

There are places in Canada that have a freakin' lottery to determine who gets to have a family doctor.

Ok, that's out of my system.  Why a lottery?

As of 2007, there were 12,000 Canadian docs practicing in the USA. 

In 2006, 1 in 9 Canadian-educated physicians practised in the United States. If physicians who were born in the United States are excluded, this number is reduced to 1 in 12. This accounts for just over half of the net loss of physicians from the Canadian-trained physician workforce. Collectively, this is equivalent to having 2 average-sized Canadian medical schools dedicated to producing physicians for the United States. Canada is the second largest source of immigrant physicians to the United States, second only to India.

People go where they can get a better return for their labor.  Doctors do it, I do it, and you do it. 

No one smart enough to get through medical school wants to be at the mercy of some charismatic, photogenic idiot who managed to get elected by claiming that a doctor's time and labor is a basic human right. 

So Canada now has a doctor shortage, especially in rural areas.  So do they turn healthcare over to the free market? 

No.  That wouldn't be "fair". 

Do they open more medical schools and train more doctors?  Do they allow nurses to handle more of the medical treatment load (which every nurse I've ever known claims that she could do....)? 

No.  That would be giving up central control. 

Canada has a lottery to see who gets a family doctor. 



Within 20 years, the USA will have a lottery system for family doctors. 

Enjoy the decline! 

Let's make Sasha and Malia's teachers buy all of the Obama family's school fundraiser candy

Dear Barack,

In one of your recent speeches about the economy, you made the following statements about the sequester cuts:

“If those layoffs had not happened, if public sector employees grew like they did in the past two recessions, the unemployment rate would be 6.5 instead of 7.5. Our economy would be much better off, and the deficit would still be going down because we would be getting more tax revenue......”

Barack, when you allow noises like those to come out of your mouth, it reveals a deep misunderstanding about productivity, prosperity, efficiency, and the purpose of work. 

Hiring public sector workers to improve unemployment statistics is like requiring Sasha and Malia’s teachers to purchase all of Sasha and Malia’s school fundraiser candy, just to get their numbers up.  Yes, candy and money would change hands, but that’s not the point of school fundraiser candy. 

Private sector firms succeed when they can produce something their customers want with fewer employees, not more.  You seem to think that success and prosperity follow from hiring more and spending more.  (Thanks to your "Jobs Created" crusade, almost every “public works” project is now announced with boasts about how many jobs it will create. ) Yes, when Google, Dell, and Peterbilt are doing well, they hire more people.  But that’s because they’re making something that people actually want, and they’ve figured out how to get more productivity out of each person, and the marketplace is rewarding them for it.  Hiring follows increased sales and efficiency, not the other way around.  You’re my age and probably remember the Coyote/Roadrunner cartoons, where the coyote tries to make his vehicle go faster by pushing the speedometer needle.  Take notes: It doesn’t work that way. 

Finally, increasing the number of federal employees is a bad thing, just because of the nature of most federal jobs.  At best, federal employees are unproductive overhead.  The Department of Education hasn’t improved education, the Department of Energy hasn’t created more energy, and at one point we had one Department of Agriculture employee for every seven farmers.  And so on and so on.  At their worst, federal employees create wars to reward their military/industrial complex contributors.  They print money and cause inflation.  These public “servants” retire at a ridiculously early age with pensions that are the envy of the private sector.  They create regulations that would make the Pope kick holes in stained glass windows.  Creating debt and red tape in the name of full employment for feds isn’t a good idea. 

We may or may not get a decent jobs report today.  Liabilities for your debts make it almost irrelevant.  We will never, ever be able to pay off what you've spent.  The economy has stunk to high heaven throughout the 5 years of your administration, and it’s because you believe that the parasites will never outgrow the host organism. 

Think again, Barack.  It’s happening. 

The IRS, The DOJ, The FDA, and Milton Friedman's Barking Cat

Why are people surprised that the IRS targeted groups that want a smaller IRS? 

Why do almost half of us think that Obama is lying when he says he didn't know that the IRS was targeting groups that want a smaller IRS? 

If you worked for the IRS, and had a great salary, would you want a larger IRS or a smaller IRS?  Would you use your power to intimidate people who wanted a smaller IRS?  Unless your name is Gandhi or Jesus, you would do exactly and precisely what the IRS did.  You would target your enemies. 

Almost half of Americans say President Barack Obama isn’t telling the truth when he says he didn’t know the Internal Revenue Service was giving extra scrutiny to the applications of small government groups seeking tax-exempt status.

.Forty-seven percent of Americans say they don’t believe Obama compared with 40 percent who say he is being truthful, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,002 adults conducted May 31 through June 3.

More than half of political independents -- 53 percent -- say Obama’s explanation that he learned it from media reports is untrue, while 34 percent say they believe him.

Why is this even called a "scandal"?  It's.... what.... large.... powerful.... governments..... do. 

1) They protect themselves and their families. 
2) They protect their organization.
3) Then they look out for you. Maybe.  All other considerations are in a distant 3rd place. 

To expect an honest, selfless system of angelic revenue thieves is to demand what Milton Friedman called a "Barking Cat".  Friedman used the example of the FDA slowing down pharmaceutical advancement, but you can insert FBI, CIA, Tarrant Regional Water District, VA Hospital, or any other government organization that has the power to control others.

Friedman got a letter that began as follows: "In contrast to your opinion, I do not believe that the FDA should be abolished, but I do believe that its power should be" changed in (such and such a way)....

Friedman replied as follows: "What would you think of someone who said, " I would like to have a cat, provided it barked"? Yet your statement that you favor an FDA provided it behaves as you believe desirable is precisely equivalent. The biological laws that specify the characteristics of cats are no more rigid than the political laws that specify the behavior of governmental agencies once they are established. The way the FDA now behaves, and the adverse consequences are not an accident, not a result of some easily corrected human mistake, but a consequence of its constitution in precisely the same way that a meow is related to the constitution of a cat. As a natural scientist, you recognize that you cannot assign characteristics at will to chemical and biological entities, cannot demand that cats bark or water burn. Why do you suppose that the situation is different in the "social sciences?"

The error of supposing that the behavior of social organisms can be shaped at will is widespread. It is the fundamental error of most so-called reformers. It explains why they so often believe that the fault lies in the man, not the "system," that the way to solve problems is to "throw the rascals out" and put well-meaning people in charge. It explains why their reforms, when ostensibly achieved, so often go astray.

The harm done by the FDA does not result from defects in the men in charge-unless it be a defect to be human. Most are and have been able, devoted and public-spirited civil servants. What reformers so often fail to recognize is that social, political and economic pressures determine the behavior of the men supposedly in charge of a governmental agency to a far greater extent than they determine its behavior. No doubt there are exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare-about as rare as barking cats.

This is what Big Government organizations do.  They abuse their power.  They look out for themselves.  In economics, it's called "Public Choice".  I understand the theory better than I do the name. 

As James Buchanan artfully defined it, public choice is “politics without romance.” The wishful thinking it displaced presumes that participants in the political sphere aspire to promote the common good. In the conventional “public interest” view, public officials are portrayed as benevolent “public servants” who faithfully carry out the “will of the people.” In tending to the public’s business, voters, politicians, and policymakers are supposed somehow to rise above their own parochial concerns.

Public "servants" look out for themselves before they look out for you.  And cats don't bark. 
Well, Friedman acknowledged that some cats might rarely bark, but only when they think none of their co-workers are watching. 

Another Modest Proposal

Go here to see a list of the misfortunes hitting young workers in the ObamEconomy. 

Sad, isn't it?  And research suggests that the longer you go without that first job, the more you'll exponentially fall behind those who were able to get a job. 

But I have an idea....

Let's make it illegal to pay workers less than a certain dollar amount per hour.  That way, there will be more earned money in circulation, the workers will have more to spend and it'll help the economy, and greedy corporations won't be able to "exploit" young workers by paying them less than the amount that I think is appropriate. 

That should help. 

They are reporting this like it is news

And this is a surprise to who?  (Or whom?  I've always had trouble with hte who/whom thing....)

Go here. 

Let's roll this chart out again, shall we?

Whited's Law - "A depression is a recession that the government tried to kill." 

See: Roosevelt, Franklin D., Carter, James E., and Obama, Barack H. 

How ObamaCare will work

How will ObamaCare work? 

Go here for all the details. 

Your stimulus dollars at work

I found this link on Instapundit. 
It's from The Charleston Gazette. 

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Nobody told Hurricane librarian Rebecca Elliot that the $22,600 Internet router in the branch library's storage closet was powerful enough to serve an entire college campus.

Nobody told Elliot how much the router cost or who paid for it. Workers just showed up and installed the device. They left behind no instructions, no user manual.

The high-end router serves four public computer terminals at the small library in Putnam County.

"I don't know much about those kinds of things," Elliot said last week, before politely leaving to help an elderly patron select books. "I just work here."

The state of West Virginia is using $24 million in federal economic stimulus money to put high-powered Internet computer routers in small libraries, elementary schools and health clinics, even though the pricey equipment is designed to serve major research universities, medical centers and large corporations, a Gazette-Mail investigation has found.

The state purchased 1,064 routers two years ago, after receiving a $126 million federal stimulus grant to expand high-speed Internet across West Virginia.

The Cisco 3945 series routers, which cost $22,600 each, are built to serve "tens of thousands" of users or device connections, according to a Cisco sales agent. The routers are designed to serve a minimum of 500 users.

Yet state broadband project officials directed the installation of the stimulus-funded Cisco routers in West Virginia schools with fewer than a dozen computers and libraries that have only a single terminal for patrons.

Hit the links to read the whole thing.  I don't know what company made these routers, but I bet I can tell you which presidential candidate they support. 

Ok, see that little button to the right of the page, the one that says "Assorted Deceptions For A Gullible Public"? 
That's a link to the Stimulus Package website.  You can go there to see how the Porkulus dollars have been spent in your neighborhood.  How many jobs were "created".  (Intentional scorn quotes.)  What they cost. 

Guess what I'm doing in my free time?  I'm contacting those organizations and business closest to my home and my warehouses and doing some interviews and having some conversations.  I suggest you do the same. 

Eventually, I'm going to post them.  They're fascinating. 

Joe Biden is in charge of making sure that none of this money is wasted, BTW.  Here's Obama rolling out the Porkulus Plan to Congress and the nation. It's only 37 seconds. Play it. Play it loud. Somebody in West Virginia has been seriously messin' with Joe:



“You compare the nation to a parched piece of land and the tax to a life-giving rain. So be it. But you should also ask yourself where this rain comes from, and whether it is not precisely the tax that draws the moisture from the soil and dries it up. You should also ask yourself further whether the soil receives more of this precious water from the rain than it loses by the evaporation?” - Frederic Bastiat

Charleston West Virginia had some serious losses due to evaporation. 

The Best of Thomas Sowell

Please stand for this month's reading from The Gospel According To Saint Thomas. 

Economist Thomas Sowell, the smartest man in the world now that Milton Friedman is dead, is now of an age where his quotations are being compiled into "best of" lists.  Just as the collection of books loosely known as "Bible" now come in the "Stock Car Racing Bible" and the "Mossy Oak Camouflage Bible", I suspect that we'll soon see the quotations of Saint Thomas in specialty editions like "Thomas Sowell For Voters Who Just Don't Understand Why The Economy Isn't Better", or "The Complete Quotations of Saint Thomas on Why Cash For Clunkers Was Totally F'ed Up" or even "Thomas Sowell: What The Hell Were You Expecting When You Elected That Chicago Machine Dumbass?" with the really good parts in red letters. 

But Saint Thomas grows old.  His words come more slowly these days.  There was one embarrassing two week period (probably because of problems with his blood pressure medication) where he supported the horrific Newt Gingrich. 

We speak of Saint Thomas with reverence, all the same.  Those of you in the back, stop fidgeting and remain standing.  After the scripture reading, you can sit through the sermon. 

(Ahem...)

Thomas Sowell, the smartest man in the world now that Milton Friedman is dead, has had his life and work examined by John Hawkins of Townhall.com, and these are reported to be his best quotes.  Please read along from your Order Of Worship:

25) "Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?"

24) "Imagine a political system so radical as to promise to move more of the poorest 20% of the population into the richest 20% than remain in the poorest bracket within the decade? You don't need to imagine it. It's called the United States of America."

23) "Four things have almost invariably followed the imposition of controls to keep prices below the level they would reach under supply and demand in a free market: (1) increased use of the product or service whose price is controlled, (2) Reduced supply of the same product or service, (3) quality deterioration, (4) black markets."

22) "What sense would it make to classify a man as handicapped because he is in a wheelchair today, if he is expected to be walking again in a month and competing in track meets before the year is out? Yet Americans are given ‘class’ labels on the basis of their transient location in the income stream. If most Americans do not stay in the same broad income bracket for even a decade, their repeatedly changing 'class' makes class itself a nebulous concept."

21) "There are few talents more richly rewarded with both wealth and power, in countries around the world, than the ability to convince backward people that their problems are caused by other people who are more advanced."

20) "The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits ever since 1994. You would never learn that from most of the media. Similarly you look at those blacks that have gone on to college or finished college, the incarceration rate is some tiny fraction of what it is among those blacks who have dropped out of high school. So it’s not being black; it’s a way of life. Unfortunately, the way of life is being celebrated not only in rap music, but among the intelligentsia, is a way of life that leads to a lot of very big problems for most people."

19) "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

18) "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late."

17) "The vision of the anointed is one in which ills as poverty, irresponsible sex, and crime derive primarily from 'society,' rather than from individual choices and behavior. To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by 'society'."

16) "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind."

15) "Life has many good things. The problem is that most of these good things can be gotten only by sacrificing other good things. We all recognize this in our daily lives. It is only in politics that this simple, common sense fact is routinely ignored."

14) "There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs."

13) "Civilization has been aptly called a 'thin crust over a volcano.' The anointed are constantly picking at that crust."

12) "We seem to be moving steadily in the direction of a society where no one is responsible for what he himself did, but we are all responsible for what somebody else did, either in the present or in the past."

11)” For the anointed, traditions are likely to be seen as the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age, and not as the distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before.”

10) "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

9) "Intellect is not wisdom."

8)” The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else while agreeing with everyone else?"

7) "Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."

6) "Experience trumps brilliance."

5) "The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."

4) "One of the consequences of such notions as ‘entitlements’ is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence."

3) "Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions — and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large."

2) "In short, killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable political strategy, so long as the goose does not die before the next election and no one traces the politicians’ fingerprints on the murder weapon."

1) "There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs."

Thus endeth the reading from the Gospel According to Saint Thomas.
The Man hath spoken. 
You may be seated while the Sepulchre's Cathedral Choir performs "Song Of Wisdom". 



You are dismissed. 

World's Easiest Economics Quiz

Republican primary preferences by age group

The Mainstream Media often seems perplexed by the college kids voting for Ron Paul. 
Why do they vote for Ron Paul?
Because he as always advocated a smaller government and a stable money supply. 
Why is that attractive to college students? 
Because they will be the true "producers" who will have to work overtime to clean up their parents' mess. 

It really is that simple. 

I'm gonna hold the tail while you hit it in the head for a while

Let's beat this dead horse a little longer. 
We'll all get some exercise, it'll make us feel better, and it doesn't hurt the horse. 

This is from John Stossel's site.  You may have seen it in a chain email.  I've posted it before.

There's a catch, though. 

After all the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that went on a year ago, THEY DIDN'T EVEN CUT THE 38.5 BILLION. 

THEY STILL SPENT 362 BILLION MORE THAN THEY DID THE YEAR BEFORE !!!!

If you have time, here is where Stossel would start cutting.  It seems extreme, but it isn't enough. 

The demotivational poster of the Victorian dude sitting on the dead horse and not beating it, that picture came from here. 

Harry Browne and P.J. O'Rourke on Free Trade

Harry Browne on Free Trade - "We have only two choices.  Either you are free to buy whaterever you want from whomever you want, wherever that seller is in the U.S. or the world - or we turn over to the politicians the power to decide what you can buy.  If we do the latter, you know from all experience that what you can buy will then be decided by those who have the most political influence."

This reminds me of P.J. O'Rourke's quip that "If politicians can determine what can be bought and sold, the first thing to be bought and sold will be politicians." 

On taking a chance by hiring a 55 year old

I had an interesting conversation today with a new employee.  He's 55 years old, works in another department, and he mentioned that he really felt grateful to have a job with us since many companies are no longer willing to take a chance on a 55 year old. 

The guy has plenty of experience, and probably has great references and credentials. 

So why wouldn't other companies take a chance on him? 

It's because if he doesn't work out and he has to be fired, he can sue his employer for age discrimination. 

Doh ! 

In my previous job, I hired, trained and promoted enough gays to staff the Disneyworld parade.  But the powers-that-be got nervous.  Very nervous.  I eventually got sat down and told about the realities of Civil Rights law, and that I might want to take it easy on hiring those fine folks.  Lots of lawsuits over minority firings were in the works.  (Comic episode:  I'm ashamed that I actually tried to comply with this.  I promoted 3 consecutive people who came out of the closet 15 minutes after I promoted them.  Ha !  I hope you're out there reading this, Betsy Batchelder.)

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, more companies would promote more racial minorites to better positions if the companies couldn't be sued for changing their minds later on????

If I decide to stop giving money to Joe's Plumbing Service and start purchasing the same service from Bill's Plumbing Service, do I have to prove that I didn't do so because of Joe's age, race, weight, sexual orientation, religion, voting record, or attitudes toward dachshund ownership?  No.  That's why excellent plumbing services owned by old, black, fat, gay, Mormon, Libertarian dachshund owners are likely to stay in business just as long as excellent plumbing services owned by young, Hispanic,healthy, straight, Presbyterian, Democrat cat owners.  Customers aren't punished if they take a chance on a minority employee and change their minds later.  (And if you hire a plumber, you are an employer.  The plumber is your employee.  Please hurry up and wrap your head around that concept !!)

Purchasing labor and effort should be just like purchasing pizzas or lug nuts.

If I decide to switch from Kroger to Wal-Mart, I don't have to fill out any paperwork.  I just purchase goods and services from Wal-Mart.  Same thing for the people who replace my roof after every hailstorm.  I don't think I've ever used the same people twice.  I probably change my mind every time, and it's none of Harry Reid and John Boehner's business.     

Civil Rights law doesn't apply to those situations, thank God.  It only applies to certain labor agreements. 

If you ever allow yourself to be placed in a protected category by the government, you might be in big, big trouble.    There is a good chance that The Law Of Unintended Consequences is going to kick you very hard.  Good luck. 

68% of the sons of the 1% have worked for Dad !!!!

The Atlantic Monthly is shocked, shocked to learn that 68% of the sons of the top 1% have worked for their father's company. 
It's true.  68% of family-owned businesses actually employ family members. 
It seems that entrepreneurs often start a business so they can provide for their own children, not those of a total stranger in Hobbes, New Mexico.

(Ok, enough of the sarcasm.  Here's the point.....)

My first job was at a family-owned business.  I shoveled mud in my father's rice fields.  He could've, and should've hired a more qualified person, like an unemployed accountant in New Jersey, or a needy interior decorator living in Bangor, Maine.  Instead, he kept the mud-shoveling job in the family.  I still feel guilty about it.  My sisters sometimes drove tractors and flagged for the cropdusters.  We've never spoken about our individual strategies for handling the shame of taking these jobs from others, but the conversation needs to happen.  Perhaps this Christmas.   

(Sorry, the sarcasm isn't going away quietly.) 

During the winters, I worked at another family-owned business, a winery across the river from the farm. 
The owner, Sam Rushing, started his vineyard on some land previously owned by his grandfather, Big Tom Rushing.  (When time permits, Google "Tom Rushen Blues" by the legendary Charlie Patton.  Patton wrote it about Big Tom.)  Not only did Sam hire Big Tom, his grandfather, Sam also hired a woman that he was sleeping with !!!  And he allowed this...this....this harlot to make actual decisions about the operation of the winery !!  And run the little cafe attached to the winery !!!  Just because she was willing to go to bed with him !!!  Yes !!!  Sam Rushing, that selfish bastard, hired his wife !!!

The Rushing Winery should've been surrounded by protesters chanting "No Justice, No Peace".

(Sorry, the sarcasm isn't going away quietly.)

After I moved to Fort Worth from Mississippi, I got a job at Bassham Food Services, loading trucks on the night shift.  Calvin Bassham, the patriarch of the bunch, had started the company by purchasing an egg truck.  He made deliveries to every restaurant and hotel in Fort Worth.  Then, to provide even more for his family, he started selling chickens.  Then other meat.  Next thing you know, Calvin Bassham was providing paper plates, forks, vegetable oil, string beans, corn, stewed tomatoes and such all over the Fort Worth/Dallas area.  He put in 80 hour weeks for years, not to pay more taxes, not to support our local infrastructure, and not to give back to the community. 
He did it for his family. 
He let his wife, Helen, keep the books.  Ronnie (#1 son) did most of the selling with Randy (#2 son).  Wes (#3 son) was in charge of the delivery trucks. 
Were there more qualified accountants than Helen in Fort Worth?  Could I have done a better job than Wes as the dispatcher? 
Yes and yes. 
But Calvin Bassham put in all those 80 hour weeks so he could give those jobs, and the company, to his own family.  The bastard. 

After that, I got another job doing the shipping and freight for Taylors Books.  Martha Taylor was the entrepreneur who started the company.  When her first bookstore in Dallas took off, Henry, her husband, quit his hospital administration job and went to work helping grow the book company.  Mike, their son, eventually took over the whole thing. 
Under Mike's leadership, the company went out of business.  Couldn't someone have seen this coming?  Out of all the retail managers in the world, why did they risk giving their business to Mike? 

I eventually left Taylors Books because of illness and fatigue (they got sick and tired of me).  I went to work for Bookstop, which was eventually purchased by Barnes and Noble. 
Barnes and Noble is owned by Len Riggio.  Years ago, Mr. Riggio hocked everything he owned, took some massive risks, and worked like a dog to grow B&N from a regional chain into a national brand.  He could have lost everything he owned. 
He now employs his little brother Steve Riggio.  Sometimes Steve runs purchasing, sometimes he runs their smaller shopping mall company, B. Dalton.  I've heard that Steve is sometimes allowed to run the whole thing.   
Len Riggio practices shameful nepotism of the worst sort.   

(Sorry, the sarcasm isn't going away quietly.)


When I reference my current employer on this site, I call it Jukt Micronics.  (Google it.) 

Jukt was founded in 1984 by a guy nicknamed Big D. 
We make display fixtures for the grocery and produce industry. 
Big D passed away several years ago, but his wife still comes to work so she can order the office supplies. 
His oldest son is the company president. 
His youngest son runs one of the factories.
The youngest son's college roommate is now our CEO. 
Big D's daughter runs the office at one of the factories.   
Big D's brother, one of the co-founders, retired several years ago.  He didn't like being idle, and now drives one of the local transfer trucks. 
One of the cousins does the bookkeeping. 
A nephew does installations for specialty displays. 
Another cousin works for an unrelated company selling insurance.  Guess who insures our stuff? 
Another cousin is a lawyer.  Guess who we go to for legal advice? 
Ok, this next one gets complicated....   Big D's oldest son's wife's brother now runs the mega-shipping warehouse, the freight brokerage, the trucking company, the local transfer drivers and the wood, metal and plastic shop freight docks.  (That would be me.) 

It seems that the 1% don't start companies so they can provide funding for wars in Libya, Bridges To Nowhere, Cash For Clunkers, African Genital-Washing Programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The War On Drugs, military contractors in John Boehner's district, or Nancy Pelosi's air travel. 
They start these companies to provide for their own.  It's part of the glue that holds the world together.   
Everything else is an afterthought. 
No legislation will ever change this. 
Thank you. 

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.” - Robert Heinlein

Top Ten reasons why the rich should be allowed to keep even more of their money

Here are the Top Ten Reasons why the rich should be allowed to keep even more of their money than they're currently keeping:

1) Because if The Federal Government takes their money, The Federal Government will probably do harmful things with it.

There are no other reasons. 

Why Didn't They Attack Switzerland?

A common-sense answer to an unusual question, from the Strike The Root website:

Switzerland has not been in a war of any kind since 1815. It has not been in an official foreign war since 1515. This would be astounding, even miraculous, for any nation. But Switzerland borders Germany . And France . And Italy . And Austria . And Liechtenstein . Now the Prince of Liechtenstein has rarely lashed out in Blitzkrieg in a desperate bid to reign uber alles, but ALL of Switzerland 's other neighbors have devoted a lot of effort to invading other countries.

In addition to the encircling foreign marauders, Switzerland itself is composed of several different ethnic groups that get along as well as, e.g., Germans and French. But they haven't ethnically cleansed each other for two centuries, either.

You would think that peacekeeping performance of this kind would make Switzerland an object of study in every political science and civics course worldwide. "WHY Didn't They Attack Switzerland ?" should be the title of many a textbook. This is not the case. Very few political scientists study Switzerland .

Switzerland is of no interest to politicians, because the features of the Swiss system that keep the peace are the same features that make Swiss politicians unimportant. Do you know the name of the Swiss President now serving out his nonrenewable one-year term? No, you do not (it's Samuel Schmid, but you won't remember tomorrow). His name doesn't matter, and he doesn't matter to the defense of Switzerland . There is no central location of Swiss defense, no Pentagon or NORAD into which you can crash a 757 or a black-market Kazakh nuclear weapon. The defense of Switzerland is the entire people of Switzerland itself.

The features of the Swiss system for keeping the peace are simple. They mind their own business, and they have very strict gun control. By which they mean that every Swiss male must have a gun, except for those who have to carry a mortar or missile launcher. Females are not subject to universal military training, but if you go to a Swiss rifle range, there are always girls blasting away too. After 9-11, teh Swiss carried on as usual, somewhat different from the US response of panicked victim-disarmament. (You are aware that 99% of US pilots are STILL disarmed?)

Hit the link up top to read the whole thing. 
This pic is from Hammer Of Truth:

Helpful Advice

Never go online to ask for proof...

If you really don't want something to be proven.