Rich Karlgaard’s Blue State Blues

Sometimes I read an editorial that just simply speaks my mind.  The following link to Rich Karlgaard’s Digital Rules Blog at Forbes. com is one such editorial.

Enjoy: Blue State Blues

It’s the Partisanship, Stupid

Likely the most absurd thing to happen so far this year has been the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama.  But what is worse than the actual awarding of the prize, which is basically worthless and meaningless, is the attending justification of this insanity by his loyal followers.  And I don’t just mean the neo-liberal Clintonites who believe in the warped idea that there can be humane reasons for bombing the hell out of third world countries in order to bring their living standards in line with ours, despite the fact that they may not be desirous of that outcome at all–lest they be fighting their own revolutions.  No, I’m talking about the anti-war liberals who were so viciously opposed to the Bush Doctrine.  The only real change in the doctrine now is the absence of Bush.  The means and ends are the same.  Yet these rabid Obamamites are so invested in his success, mainly for reasons other than foreign policy, that they are perfectly willing to overlook the immorality of his foreign policy.  And that is how politicians achieve their goals.  The most disgusting thing about it is the image of these otherwise intelligent people dolefully playing the sheeple role they are so expected to play.

Obama is quick to remind anyone who accuses him of being fiscally irresponsible that he inherited a mess, which he did.  However, the same basic process led to that mess.  Loyalist conservatives, eager to see Bush succeed, overlooked his reckless managerial style and basically turned their heads while he grew the size of government more than any of his predecessors, Republican or Democrat, and spent money that wasn’t even there like there really is no tomorrow.

The image we have of our political parties is not always in synch with reality.  People see Republicans as being fiscally responsible, and Democrats as being a party of peace.  But if we look back over the last 40 years or so it becomes apparent that the administrations that grew the size of government the most have been those of Nixon, Reagan, and father and son Bush.  While Carter and Clinton actually reduced the size of government and had much more responsible fiscal policies.  Accordingly, Democratic presidents over that last one hundred years have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of more deaths because of war than Republicans.  But God forbid anyone attempt to take Americans’ mythologies away from them.  Such may result in a total collapse of the whole two-party political system–a fine and desirable goal indeed.

So we can do as is done and has always been done, and look at the current problem caused by one wing and hope for respite from the other.  Or we can wise up and realize it’s the wings in and of themselves that are the problem.  It is not the particular political parties and their policies that are the problems we face, it is the attending partisanship, the inability to see the emperor in his full nudity that is the problem.  It is baseless and empty to blame the parties or their leaders.  It’s the followers, the sheeple who refuse to think for themselves that got us into this mess, and the last mess, and the one before that, ad infinitum.  The problem with a participative democratically-based system is that it is incumbent on the participants to not only be informed, but to act on principle and not groupthink.  This is also a good argument in support of limited–very limited–government.  But alas that is an argument that is unlikely to be heard for some time now.

How Did We Get Here, Really?

Paul Krugman, the darling of Keynesian Economics, asks the question, “How Did Economists Get it So Wrong” in a recent New York Times Magazine piece.  That is a worthwhile and relevant question, one we should be asking, and one we should be diligent in attempting to answer.  But Krugman is not really asking this  question as an impartial scientist.  He is asking it as a partisan.  And he is answering it as a partisan.  He in essence argues for Keynesisanism as opposed to Neo-Classical Chicago-School economics, and so on and so forth.  Economists consider their discipline a science.  And indeed it is a science, a social science.  It is based in and on humanity and all the attending failings that are a result of human action and interaction.  Economics can never be a hard-fast science like biology or physics, even if they do try to make it so with intricate econometric analyses.

In his current piece Krugman draws the reader into a brief history of popular Western economics, and an argument for a certain school of economic thought: his.  It is plain and simple a Keynesian argument.  My point here is not to argue against Krugman and Keynes, although I do believe there is an argument available there for someone more versed in economics than I.  My point is that I believe Krugman has it all wrong in his latest rhetorical treatise.  It’s not that we should have chosen, or now need to chose, a certain partisan economic position.  It’s that partisanship in and of itself is what has gotten us into this mess.  I do realize that economists don’t consider themselves to be “partisans” for adopting and working within a certain theoretical framework.  But let’s call it what it is.  If it looks like a duck, hey…

For the record there were economists who predicted this mess.  Specifically, the Austrian School and others such as Peter Schiff. But within the world of economics theirs is considered fringe and unpopular.  As I noted earlier, economics is a social science and subject to the failings of human action and interaction.  In this case the fringe schools are subject to the social failing of not being “popular”.  So like the cliques at the local high school or playground, the unpopular kids are basically ignored.  But before I begin to sound as if I am just further arguing for yet another partisan answer I should restate my premise.  The problem is not that we relied on one particular school of thought over another.  It’s that we relied on partisan answers.  We have married economics to politics.  So we are left to buy into the economics of our political thinking.  We have painted ourselves into a strategic corner.

Economics has been described as a dismal science.  The current situation bears this out.  Because it is a science, difficult, complicated, and bordering on magic, we have to rely on experts and specialists to explain it to us, to understand it for us.  So what?  That’s the case with most science, right?  Most of us don’t understand the depth and magnitude of physics so we rely on physicists to put it into plain English so that we can understand it.  However, physics has not been politicized–yet.  Economists on the other hand often end up being the handmaidens of politicians, and by extension the attending political movements, publications, schools of thought, extensions of religious beliefs, etc…

But economics should be like everything else in our lives.  We should look at it individually, outside what our friends, fellow partisans, fellow parishioners, or fellow professionals believe.  As individuals we should think for ourselves and do our homework.  But more importantly, we should demand this from our representatives.  People don’t really make very good herd animals.  There is no such thing as the public will.  There is no political, religious, nor economic system that suits us all.  We will be better served individually, and further collectively, if we think, act, and react as individuals first and then proceed to consensus and agreement.  In the current economic crisis, we would have all been better served if our representatives would have allowed themselves to think outside the box and look for rational rather than emotional or political answers to our national problems.  There are alternative answers, even if they aren’t popular or propagated by populist economists and empty-shirt politicians.

Conscience of a Classical Liberal

I realize I have painted myself in a corner politically.  By being an Independent I am usually at odds with whoever happens to be President.  Yes, that can be convenient in that I don’t have to defend “my President”, the guy I voted for.  But honestly I don’t mind that.  I voted for Reagan in 80 and Clinton in 92 and 96.  And I felt then, as I do now, that I voted my conscience given my political mind at the time, my understanding of the issues, and my choices.  However, several unrelated issues coalesced in the late 90s that gave me reason to reevaluate my political thinking.  Partly the statist actions of the Clinton Administration–Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bosnia, Iraq–rubbed me the wrong way.  Another big thing for me was re-reading and understanding Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson.  The result for me was a realization that individualism is important, even in a democratic system–in many ways more so in a democratic system.  That being the case I found it important for me to really vote my conscience.  That means voting for the person most likely to represent my political values, rather than settling for the lesser of two evils, even if said person doesn’t have a chance in hell.  I made that decision because I felt it more important to express my values at the polls than to settle for a person I disagree with, but who is definitely better than the other guy.  I just can’t do that anymore.

I have over the years considered myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  My positions have changed over time but mainly to the extremes at the edges.  In other words I have become even more fiscally conservative and more socially liberal over time.  I am registered as unaffiliated, or independent.  Philosophically I consider myself a classical liberal.  My concern with libertarianism is the tendency to anarchy.  I understand the theoretical underpinnings of market anarchy and I find most of it extremely interesting.  But I am at this time in my life a classical liberal.  I still envision some function, albeit limited, for the state.  Contrary to public mythology, that does not make me a conservative.  Conservatives can find all kinds of diabolical uses for the state.  In fact most of the people who in the current political climate consider themselves conservative are more rightly fascist.

This brings me to my current gripe with the political status quo.  I find it hilarious that public conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are all of a sudden fans of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. I liken this to the uneducated itinerant preacher who claims all kinds of scientific facts are revealed in the pages of the Bible.  The preacher, like these conservatives, is sincere in his beliefs, but none of them really understand the literary underpinnings of their sources.  Typically these conservatives are doing to Rand what they have done to Thomas Jefferson for years.  They take what is convenient and disregard the rest.  Limited government is only limited government when it’s always limited.  Typically these blow-hards are driving Obama into the ground for big spending and lack of fiscal restraint.  It’s not that I disagree with their arguments, but they speak with forked tongues.  Where were they when “W” was spending like a drunken sailor?  We can all rightly condemn the new Democratic majority as they take the country ever closer to Socialism. But the greatest blame falls on the Republicans for allowing their President to drive this country into the ground to begin with.  If they are unhappy with the way the country is going they should accept the fact that they laid the groundwork for it with eight years of “Neo-conservatism”.

I don’t like the direction in which the country is heading. I intend to criticize Obama and Congress as they make decisions and take actions I disagree with.  I disagreed with and criticized Bush also.  That doesn’t make for a convenient situation where I can just always criticize those in charge.  It makes for a very inconvenient situation where we still have an administration that doesn’t reflect my values.  I didn’t vote for Obama (or McCain), but I would criticize him even if I did.  That in my opinion is the proper role for citizens in a participative democracy.  The previous eight years almost ruined this country.  It is incumbent on all of us to try to bring this country back to our foundation values again.  Hopefully we can make progress in that direction.

Welcome to Sytemic Sanity’s New Site

Welcome to the new location for my Sytemic Sanity blog.  I previously blogged at sysan.rodneyjowen.com.  I needed a better format and think I found it here at wordpress.  I will re-post some of my entries from the old location here at this site.  All previous posts from that location are still available.  I just will not be adding any more there.  I am looking forward to the new site and sharing my thoughts, rants and confusions here.  Stand by…..

The Logic of Human Action

According to Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action is axiomatic.  “Action is the essence of [man’s] nature and existence, his means of preserving his life and raising himself above the level of animals and plants.”  In short, humans act.  We act to satisfy our desires and our desires are what drive us.  There is no existence for us without acting.  Obviously we act for basic functions, food, sleep, survival.  Further, we act on needs and desires beyond those of survival.  Cheese puffs and jazz are not necessary for survival, but we may pursue them just the same.  Why?  Because we have desires and we have a methodology for meeting them: action.  But, because we can satisfy many of our desires, is it logical to do so?  It could be argued that a diet of nothing but cheese puffs and jazz at dangerously loud levels is illogical as that wouldn’t be healthy.  But Mises further says that “Human action is always rational…when applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless.”  We eat the junk food and turn up the stereo because that is what we want and because we can.  If we know the consequences beforehand and do it anyway we are acting rationally, because we are using the means available to acquire the end we want and are obviously accepting of the risk of weight gain and loss of hearing.  If we don’t know the consequences beforehand we are acting rationally for the same reason and are ignorant of the risks.

Human action is simply the means one uses to reach a desired end.  Rational or irrational are value judgments made by an outside agent.  The particular action chosen may not be the most appropriate or expedient for attaining the end sought, but it is the action itself that is important.  Action as a means to a given end is only rational.  We humans have the ability to control our environment.  We are not victims unless we chose to be, and it is choice that empowers us.  Indeed making or not making a choice is action itself, and is always rational.  It is rational because we are exercising our free will; we are manipulating our environment as best we can.  We may find later that we didn’t make the best choice or take the most efficient action.  But that should only influence our future choices and actions.  We always work with the knowledge available to us at the time.  If we learn from our actions or other associated circumstances we should be that much more prepared for future choices and actions.

We live in a cause and effect, but not necessarily a mechanistic, world.  We are not determined beings.  We ourselves do the determining.  However, we do make mistakes.  We often make the wrong choices, act in ways that are not in our best interest.  But that is not Mises’ point.  Mises would say that those are values judgments, right or wrong.  But deciding to act and acting accordingly are our means by which we reach a desired end.  In hindsight we often reflect on our choices and decide that we did not take the most expedient path, or that unexpected side effects are not worth the cost required to reach the end sought.  But it is we who do the choosing, we who do the acting.  We may open ourselves to divine guidance and act on what we perceive to be inspired ideas.  But we do the acting.  The fact that we have free will, freedom of choice, and the intelligence to utilize these is what separates us from others in God’s kingdom.  Divine guidance, while obviously relatyed, is another subject altogether, outside the realm of this entry, but one I should approach at another time.

This is a controversial concept.  However, if we keep within the range of Mises’ teaching and understand his meaning it makes perfect sense.  The wild card here is value judgment.  Mises says that each person has his/her own values, and any judgment from outside is inappropriate.  I couldn’t agree more.

Source: Human Action http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf

The New American Auto Industry

As I look at the automotive industry as it exists today–GM and Chrysler filing Chapter 11 after big govt. bailouts–my first thought is that Ford is the big domestic winner in all this.  I can envision Ford being the Harley Davidson of the auto industry, the last great American Motor Company.  But upon further consideration, Ford may be the big loser in the end, simply because they did all the right(?) things.  By taking out loans instead of government bailouts and by working on business strategies instead of bankruptcies they may end up at a severe disadvantage.  After all, Ford has to repay those loans, and all other debts while the other two have their debts erased.  There is something inherently wrong with this.  But then again, comparing them to Harley Davidson reminds me of why my 80s’ vintage Honda is a CB700 instead of a CB750.  After years of steadily getting their asses kicked by the Japanese, who were putting out much superior products, Harley went to the Reagan administration and asked for protective tariffs.  The government proceeded to put an import tax on any imported motorcycle over 700cc.  The Japanese followed suite by retooling their 750s to be 700s.  In the case of my motorcycle that was a good thing because Honda simply de-stroked the 750 to 699cc which has the same effect as boring out a 650 to 700–more power in a smaller package.  My CB700 is much quicker and has more torque than the 750 models that preceded and followed it.

But, back to today.  I would like to see Ford succeed.  Not because I am a Ford fan.  I’m not.  I would also like to see them make a better product, and I have since the mid-seventies when all the domestic companies started making junk.  I would like to see Ford succeed because they have tried to do this the right way, without government bailouts or bankruptcy.  Further, I don’t think America can really support three major auto industries.  Not with the quality that is being imported these days.  In my opinion there may be a smaller role in the 21^st century economy for some of the GM products–a really smaller role.  Chrysler should fold and shut the doors.  Ford could be the big one of the formerly big three.  But that scenario is for an ideal world without so much government intervention and goofy laws.  In this world, who knows?  I do believe that in ten years that landscape will be extremely different.  And I will likely still be driving my 97 Toyota Tacoma and my 86 Honda CB700.