1 - 7
In response to:

Socialism Isn't Charity

Ahenobarbus Wrote: Mar 21, 2014 3:44 PM
Every argument with a Progressive (the American derivative of Socialism) on the question of government enforced benevolence will boil down to one thing: their refusal to acknowledge that anyone wealthy is the legitimate owner of their wealth. They will always argue that the wealth rightly belongs to the workers and that the profits of the owner were not justly shared with the workers. With this they breezily justify every governmental theft of wealth. Redistribution is only economic justice in their minds. A smaller corollary is their belief that if something can be argued to be a "good thing", it is acceptable to give the government the power to do that thing. Socialism is an atheist creed. In order to make inroads into South and Central America, it was necessary to develop "Liberation Theology", a subversion of Catholicism with Marxist thought. A purely atheist Marxism would never have appealed to these highly Catholic populations otherwise. A similar but much subtler subversion has been going on in the mainstream Protestant denominations in the U.S. since at least the advent of the New Deal. Hence you will find views amongst the leadership of many mainline national Church organizations that are far more liberal than they are Christian and would be unrecognizable to their congregations if they were aware of them. I say more liberal than Christian because I cannot see anything in the New Testament in which appropriation of a neighbor's goods to fund one's own charitable acts is anything more than covetousness and theft. As a matter of government policy, the New Testament is intentionally silent. As a matter of personal responsibility as a Christian, it is abundantly clear. In this case, the Church's role should be the Christian position. The *government* and the voters may choose to indulge in envy and theft, but the *Church* should not be advocating for it. There is nothing Christian in forcing someone else to make a sacrifice on your behalf.
We get ourselves into unnecessary and irrelevant distractions when we start arguing the details over definitions and types of weapons. The real issue is imposing a ban by executive fiat. That is where the line should be drawn; it is unconstitutional and should not be countenanced.
In response to:

The GDP Multiplier for QE

Ahenobarbus Wrote: Jul 08, 2013 6:20 PM
More Keynesian analysis. Is there no end to it? The multiple, overlapping confusions that are required to believe all of this are staggering. The Keynesian theory that recommends debasing the currency in order to "fix" unemployment is based on the assumption that workers leave the workforce if their wages fall below a certain level in terms of money but not if they fall below that same level in purchasing power. And more employment means less saving and more consumption. Consumption is good, and saving is bad, because Keynes essentially saw all saving as hoarding -- that none of the money would be deposited in an account where it could be loaned out and used in the economy. That all of this was effectively disproven by the "stagflation" -- the rising inflation AND unemployment of the 1970s -- is apparently in the process of being entirely forgotten. Worse, Keynes's theories of employment and money were never substantiated or proven by Keynes. He simply declared them to be true, and developed a series of impressive looking yet meaningless equations around them. But the central fallacy of analysis such as the above is much the same as one of Keynes's worst weaknesses. It contemplates ONLY the QE (debasement of the currency) and completely ignores ALL OTHER VARIABLES in the economy. Of course, if Fed policy is all you're looking at, it is easy to assume that what happens between time A and time B is the result of Fed policy, but that is entirely superficial and blinkered thinking.
In the current environment, why are so many pundits assuming that executive branch employees are going to be as pure as the driven snow? I dearly wish more of these folks would take the time and effort to learn more about data collection, searching, and mining. There is no reason for blanket collection of this sort except to provide cover for accessing information you don't want someone else to know you're accessing. I can understand that lawyers don't get this. Those of us who work in IT, particularly those of us who work with data, understand that blanket collection is a very poor method for getting to targeted results.
In response to:

Flooded by Keynesianism

Ahenobarbus Wrote: Nov 03, 2012 1:34 PM
This is not even to address the insurance question. When Krugman and other Keynesians talk about the insurance money to rebuild all that's been lost, they treat the insurance funds as "found money". But it is not free; the insurance companies will lose tremendous amounts of funds, and the reinsurance companies that insure them will also be out tremenous amouns of money. This value will have to be replaced with future productivity. That means higher insurance prices to make up the value of the payouts. However those costs are distributed they will have to be met.
In response to:

Video: Biden Gaffe of the Day

Ahenobarbus Wrote: Nov 03, 2012 1:14 PM
There is no such thing as a non-partisan group among those who invest any thought at all in the political arena.
In response to:

Joe Arpaio "Will Get His Punishment"

Ahenobarbus Wrote: Jul 22, 2012 12:26 PM
Wow. Once again the media "Archie Bunkered" the issue. The people that they chose to interview who were against Joe Arpaio were articulate and poised. The person supporting him that they chose to interview was neither. That was a blatantly conscious choice. "Archie Bunkering" an issue is a term I use to describe making your argument look better by having someone intelligent represent your position and placing the arguments for the opposition in the hands of a buffoon. Norma Lear used this to great effect by having his position voiced by the educated, intelligent, and reasonable Michael Stivic and always having the contrary position voiced by the bigoted, inarticulate, comical, and not-so-bright Archie Bunker.
1 - 7