Some time back, I wrote a lengthy post on why I am not a Republican. I stick by that account. Not only is the historical founding and growth of the party abhorant to me, it's modern leaders are as well. Admittedly, there is at least a part of me that has a soft spot of The Gipper. And Ron Paul, who holds a congressional seat as a Republican, and ran for President in the Republican primary is a man that I admire. But, on the other hand, going back through at least Eisenhower, the policies pursued by Republican Presidents or Presidential Nominees have been very poor. Think Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain. No real true solid consistent constitutionalist in the bunch. In fact, quite the opposite. (Reagan, I believe was a mixed bag - and while far from perfect, was the best of the bunch)
Basically, I am a man without a party. While I am not a Republican, I do not see how any knowledgeable Christian person could ever support any of the Democratic Presidential candidates of the last several decades. It is chilling to me that many Christians are openly supporters of our current leader, Barack Obama. While I can sympathize greatly with them if they do not like many of the Republican contenders, as neither do I, I can not even see a "hold your nose and vote for Obama as the lesser of the two evils" approach as acceptable. As I wrote elsewhere, I even think a 'wasted' third party vote or even a no vote at all are more respectable than a vote for a downright evil candidate.
But, I am aware of people who profess the name of Jesus Christ and who attend Evangelical Bible Believing churches who whole heartedly support Barack Obama. I honestly do not get it. I can give at least a couple of reasons for it, but I think they would fall apart with even a cursory examination.
1. GWB got us into a war that we do not need to be in and we need a change in that direction.
The whole current war situation is way beyond my understanding and I honestly do not know if it is a 'just war' on our part or not. I am not of a settled opinion, and can actually understand if someone is of the settled opinion of it being bad. That is, I can sympathize with someone who thinks this is the wrong war, at the wrong time, fought in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons. But, after all the hoopla in the election cycle, when all is said and done Obama's timeline for troop withdrawel is virtually identical to Bush's.
2. We have used torture methods and Obama is ending that practice and shutting down Gitmo
The torture method that seems to make all the headlines is waterboarding. This is a very controlled method which produces no injury and no long term harm. Obviously while going through waterboarding, the recipient must be under more than a minor discomfort, else it would not work. But, is it 'torture'? Is it inhumane? What if it produces results which prevent a major attack on the US (which it has) What if this method, which produces no injury results in imformation which saves thousands of lives?
This interrogation process does not even hold a candle to the methods used in the past and present by other nations - many of which either permanently maim, or even kill the victims. (I don't think anyone has ever survived a decapitation)
But, no, we just need to 'love our enemies' I am told. All the while, they not only hate us, but are bent on our very destruction.
Also, as some commentators are now pointing out, for all the grand oratory about closing Gitmo, our beloved leader has no workable plan on what to do with the detainees. Hey, Obama supporters, ya'll got any ideas? Why don't you 'love' them by taking them into your own homes???
Finally, though, if Barak wants to end the practice of waterboarding and even if he wants to close Gitmo, that still does not make it right for him to have released important classified documents to the world.
3. Barack (and of course all Democrats) care for the poor or otherwise underpriviledged, unlike those rich evil Republicans
This is the one that just kills me. Of course, every politician of any party if he or she is going to have any chance of getting elected, is going to claim to want to help the helpless, etc. and of course, virtually everyone falls into some sort of 'underpriviledged category. Women?? Underprivilidged. Minorities? Underpriviledged. Old People; children; overweight; addicts; The list goes on and on.
And of course every right thinking person, especially Christians, actually do want to truly help the truly underpriviledged. BUT, on what do we base the idea that the only way, or even the best way, to do so is through government coercion? I could go on and on, and won't, but I have yet to hear a single person argue effectively that government is good or successful at this. In fact, I have seen scholarly studies proving just the opposite. Also, on what do we base the very idea that this is even a legitimate function of government. Helping the needy IS a legitimate activity, and the Church should be behind it in every way. But before one more Christian ever attempts to tell me that he or she is for the 'liberal' candidate because said candidate 'cares about the poor' I insist that that person make the biblical case that this is a legitimate function of the civil government to carry out. I am also going to insist that they prove to me that if I don't share their love of government programs, that this means that I do not care about the plight of the unfortunate. I hate to harp so much on this, but I have read a few too many Christian writers state that they like Obama (or some other liberal) because he cares about the poor and of course Christians should care about the poor so why would any Christian not support Obama. Well, I care about the poor, and I think in the long run government programs to help the poor actually hurt the poor and everyone else, so why would I support a candidate that wants more and more programs?
Now, in addition to fact that the supposed reason for a Christian to be a supporter of Obama are quite weak, the reasons to not be are even stronger.
1. For over 20 years Obama attended a church that was so obviously racist and anti-American that absolutely no one can deny it. He finally dropped it when it became a politically hot issue and the media immediately dropped the issue as well. But, study up on this church and its preacher. Then exchange the black and white labels and ask yourself would a white person ever stand any chance of having any respectability at all if he attended such a place. You know the answer. It is beyond doubt. The white guy would be universally condemned and would never stand a chance in national politics. AND RIGHTLY SO. But, with Obama, we just act like it never happened. Apparently people even believe his preposterous story that even though he attended there twenty years, he never heard any of the inflamatory type remarks that were documented.
Moreover, Barack's 'religion' is not at all Orthodox Christianity. I base this not on conjecture, but on his own words that can easily be found on the internet. He believes all will go to heaven and there is no hell. He believes 'sin' is defined as 'not being true to yourself'. (Actually, we are all born sinners so sin is actually when we ARE true to ourselves!!) there are so many other things in which whatever his religious beliefs may be, they are definitely not Christian.
2. Obama has very little relavent experience
He has in his adult life been a left wing agitator (aka community organizer) a state repressentative (for a short period) and a US Senator for a short period before running for President.
3. He demonstrates on a daily basis that he does not understand (or is it does not care about?) our constitutional system of government.
The constitution spells out what the federal government as a whole can and can not do, and specifically spells out what the executive can and can not do. He daily acts as if these restraints do not exist.
4. He is driving the economy so far down the tubes that I fear it will never recover
I know I know George Bush did this. Well, he did have a lot to do with it. That is why I do not like W. He pushed the economy further and further toward the breaking point. But, here is what 98% of Americans do not understand. BO does not represent a change in direction from the Bush administration in the area of the economy. Instead, he is going in basically the same direction at a much much higher rate of speed. All this sype policy does is put off the inevitable crash that much longer, and make the inevitable crash that much more severe. Apparently Obama, like Keynes, has the opinion that it does not matter because "in the long run, we're all dead." How CHRISTIAN is it to place our kids and grandkids in the position of a nation in total economic collapse?
5. He radically supports gay 'rights' and the gay agenda
On an earlier post I put a link to a site documenting his beliefs and actions on this issue. You can go look it up
6. He is rabidly pro-abortion - more so than any President or contendor in the history of this nation
Again, that post refered to in #5 has info on this. Of course, many Christian Obama supporters will say that well, they are not 'one issue voters' but if there was ever a single issue that one could vote on, this would be it. Killing innocent unborn human life just should not be an option.
I also realize that some supporters will say that we should be more willing to help and to be understanding to women in the unfortunate position of having an unwanted pregnancy. I agree, that Christians should be on the front lines of this issue and where we are not it is to our shame. But even that is not as shameful as supporting a politician who wants no part of any limitations on abortions. And we do not need to let our care and concern about it remove us from the fact that quite often the woman is not exactly a 'victim' but was a willing accomplice. We are not showing Christian love to a person by telling them there are no consequences to their actions. Instead we show them there is forgiveness in the cross and strength in Christ to work through the situation without resorting to making a bad situation a million times worse by committing murder.
How anyone who considers themselves an evangelical Christian, who believes that humans have dignity and worth because they are created in the image of God, could turn the other way and support with great fanfare a leader who is not only complacent, but active in the destruction of millions of innocent lives, while at the same time decrying a previous leader because he allowed some people to poor water on the faces of terrorists bent on our destruction is totally beyond me.
Can anyone explain this to me please?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Our Current Economic Crisis
I have been reading, studying, and thinking alot about the economy lately. My daughter is having to read a book entitled Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? for her high school economics course and the wife and I have been reading it also. Like all economics books, it is not perfect. But, especially the first several chapters are very good, and should be required reading for every single person in America (that is if I were the dictator type - but I guess the fairness doctrine would insist that everyone also read Keynes or Marx or something).
I have also been re-skimming Honest Money by Dr. Gary North, and What Has the Government Done to Our Money by the late Professor Murray Rothbard. If you get a chance, you need to read any or all of these.
Yesterday while out and about, I stumbled on a radio program which featured a guest named Thomas Woods. His insight into the situation was fascinating. A brief article about his book can be found here: http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8531
Woods main argument, one that is echoed in the works of Rothbard and others, is that an unfettered free market is NOT the cause of the problems we are facing, and government intervention of one form or the other is NOT the solution. In fact, the exact inverse is true.
The current situation, like that of the Great Depression of the 1930s, has been caused by irresponsible governmental monetary policy.
The books mentioned above make this claim as well. In reading my version of Penny Candy which was dated 2005, I was fascinated by the relevance to the current situation. The author demonstrates how throughout history, governments have turned to the same currency devaluing schemes to try to continue to prop themselves up, ultimately leading to their inevitable downfall, and the downfall of the society they were suppose to be protecting. The same thing is happening now at a terribly alarming rate.
Money is simply a medium of exchange. Nothing more. Nothing less. The natural state of things has always led in civilized society to the use of precious metals ( hereafter referred to as PMs), specifically gold and silver, as this medium of exchange. The reasons for this are many. PMs have real value in and of themselves. They can be broken down into usable quantities (from large bullion to small coins). The amount of them available in society can not be quickly, nor infinitely increased. In short, they provide value, ease of use, and stability.
Monetary units (such as dollars) are simply known quantities of some precious metals. By definition, a dollar was the equivalent of one ounce of silver. (The British Pound Sterling was just that - a pound of sterling silver). At the time of the formation of the U. S. Constitution, gold was considered to have roughly twenty times the value of silver - hence a 'dollar' was also one twentieth an ounce of gold, or an ounce of gold was twenty dollars. That is, the value of gold or silver did not fluctuate in terms of dollars, but the value of a dollar would fluctuate if the value of gold or silver fluctuated. Things were essentially this way for the better part of 150 years. If you had a dollar, that meant you had an ounce of silver or a twentieth of an ounce of gold. If silver or gold for some reason increased or decreased in value, your purchasing power increased or decreased with it. However, due to the nature of things, rapid or large fluctations in the value of precious metals rarely occur.
In times past, such as during the late stages of the Roman Empire, governments would devalue the currency by 'clipping' the coins. That is, they would collect coins (through taxation or whatever means), shave off portions of the gold or silver, then mint new coins with the shavings. A coin that was say one ounce, may then be 0.9 ounce, but, have the same 'face value' even though the real value had diminished. Also, there were now more coins made from the same amount of PM.
Now suppose you were a Roman merchant who was selling an item for an amount equal to nine ounces of PM. Previously, you collected nine 1 ounce coins. Now, to obtain the same quantity, you needed ten 0.9 ounce coins. (Obviously, I am simplifying here). The result? There are more coins (therefore, supposedly more 'money' available for exchange) in the market, but prices have gone up. That is, the currency has been devalued. Prices have risen. People may seemingly have more 'money' in their pocket, but, their purchasing power has not improved. This is inflation.
Please note, inflation is not a rising of prices. The rising of prices is a result of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of the currency.
Over the centuries other innovations have made this practice more convenient for the government devaluers (counterfeiters) to ply their trade. The most useful innovation has been the introduction of paper money.
Paper money began as what could be termed bank notes. Someone may not want to store their reserves of PM in their own home. Businesses which were essentially warehouses for PMs developed. One could deposit his PM in the warehouse, and the warehouse would issue him a paper receipt or receipts. Suppose I deposited 25 ounces of gold and 100 ounces of silver in the warehouse. I get receipts stating that I have this (maybe I get twenty five receipts each worth one ounce of gold, and 100 receipts each worth one ounce of silver). Now, I do not carry all this gold and silver around with me, but I can redeem any or all of my receipts whenever I desire. If I buy an item priced at one silver ounce, I could trade my receipt for it. Now, the merchant I traded with can redeem that receipt upon demand and receive the actual silver. (Likely, the warehouse (bank) would charge some type of holding and processing fee for this service.)
Now, these banks began to get creative. They determined that rarely if ever did they have a run on all deposits. At any time, they had the overwhelming majority of deposits on hand. Therefore, they began 'loaning' some of the reserves that they had. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking. So, just using my deposits for example. I may come in and out occasionally and deposit more, or withdraw some, but on the whole, my balance is staying somewhere near what I originally deposited. The bank may then write out another receipt against my deposit and give it to another individual as a loan that must be repaid. So, now for my one deposit, there are two sets of receipts in circulation. The borrower then goes and somehow invests this, trying to make a return. He may go turn his certificate over to a merchant who sells him some equipment that he uses to provide a good or service to make more money. If he makes a return, he pays back the borrowed credit, with interest. The bank has made money. As long as I, and the others who are now holding certificates against my deposits do not demand our PMs at the same time, the bank is safe. However, obviously, the larger the overlending verses the amount actually on reserve, the larger the risk the banker is taking. Also, the riskier the investment, the more risk of the bank failing.
Fractional reserve banking has caused some problems during economically troubled times in the past. In fact, it has actually caused some of the economic problems themselves. For one, this has inflated the currency (If the banker 'loans out' receipts equal to my original deposit, he has essentially doubled the currency in circulation, thereby lowering its value, much like the coin clippers of old)
During much of the 19th century, American politicians struggled with these issues. On the one hand were the bankers, licking their chops to use fractional reserve banking, along with the politicians they backed to help foster the system. On the other hand, were more economically conservative politicians who fought against this system.
Finally, in 1913, perhaps the greatest debacle in the history of American economics occured. The Federal Reserve system went into effect. Since that time, they have continued along a path that has gone further and further in the direction of currency devaluation.
The climax of this has been to utimately remove all ties from our paper money to any PM, along with the passage of 'legal tender' laws. Not too many years ago, your paper money had a noted on it saying it could be redeemed for 'real money' (i.e. silver or gold). That is no longer the case. Now, it is simply a note that we are forced by law to accept as legal tender for all debts. In reality it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. (And nowadays, often it is not even that, but is simply an electronic blip on a computer program). You could have piles and piles of hundred dollar bills, and they are absolutely worthless in and of themselves (unlike silver or gold) and the ONLY reason they have value is because the government by law forces everyone to accept them as tender.
So, now the 'value' of a dollar is not tied to PMs. It therefore can fluctuate tremendously. As stated previously, one of the major reasons why PMs became used as a medium of exchange is because they could not be quickly and easily devalued by a sudden large influx. (It is not impossible that this could happen, as it happened in Spain when they obtained huge amounts of gold from the Americas during the 16th century - another story for another post at another time!) However, it can not easily and frequently happen.
However, when paper that is printed solely at the governments discretion and is forced to be used as legal tender is the only allowable legal tender, the government can inflate the currency at will. A huge influx of this so called money into the economy does not add one whitt of wealth to the economy, but only devalues the currency.
Our wealth as a nation is the sum total of all our productivity. In reality, money is only a medium of exchange for that productivity. If suddenly the government prints one trillion dollars and injects that into the economy, it has not increased our wealth one iota. All it has done is make the buying power of each unit (dollar) that much less. This can cause widespread destruction.
Suppose you are 70 years old, have worked hard all your life, have saved, invested, and smartly handled your money and you now have a net value of one million dollars. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? However, if the government suddenly prints and circulates trillions of dollars into the economy, now your one million dollars is worth a fraction of what it once was. All your hard work and intelligence just went down the drain. This is happening to millions of Americans right now.
Well, in our current hard financial situation (which has been caused by the very monetary policies we are talking about) the Messiah's, uh, I mean the President's plan for fixing it is to inject tons of money into the economy. See how utterly senseless this is?
Not one person in a hundred understands this. The average Joe, while possibly thinking something might be amiss in what is going on, at least on some level thinks that injecting money to 'jump start' the economy is a good thing.
In actuality, it is a travesty - and one we will be suffering from for a long time to come.
This inflationary monetary policy is actually harmful in many many more ways than I can even begin to talk about here. This policy, and not the unfettered free market, causes the business 'boom and bust' cycles we have seen throughout our history. We have just come out of a long 'boom' and are now going into a huge 'bust.' The best that our current policy of stimulous can do is to continue to artifically lengthen the aritificial 'boom' and forestall the inevitable 'bust,' while making the eventual 'bust' just that much more severe. I fear we are near a breaking point where no matter what happens, soon the 'bust' will be irreversable - perhaps leading to a total cultural meltdown. The only way to fully and finally recover is to allow the 'bust' to run its course - as painful as that may be, then to restore a sound monetary policy in its wake.
Austrian economists (see the Woods link above, or that of the Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell Report to the right) have been saying this for years, only to be labeled lunatics. However, I think it is undeniable that the only solution to this situation is to somehow someway get back on some sort of Precious Metal ("honest money") monetary system with little or no government intervention.
I have also been re-skimming Honest Money by Dr. Gary North, and What Has the Government Done to Our Money by the late Professor Murray Rothbard. If you get a chance, you need to read any or all of these.
Yesterday while out and about, I stumbled on a radio program which featured a guest named Thomas Woods. His insight into the situation was fascinating. A brief article about his book can be found here: http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8531
Woods main argument, one that is echoed in the works of Rothbard and others, is that an unfettered free market is NOT the cause of the problems we are facing, and government intervention of one form or the other is NOT the solution. In fact, the exact inverse is true.
The current situation, like that of the Great Depression of the 1930s, has been caused by irresponsible governmental monetary policy.
The books mentioned above make this claim as well. In reading my version of Penny Candy which was dated 2005, I was fascinated by the relevance to the current situation. The author demonstrates how throughout history, governments have turned to the same currency devaluing schemes to try to continue to prop themselves up, ultimately leading to their inevitable downfall, and the downfall of the society they were suppose to be protecting. The same thing is happening now at a terribly alarming rate.
Money is simply a medium of exchange. Nothing more. Nothing less. The natural state of things has always led in civilized society to the use of precious metals ( hereafter referred to as PMs), specifically gold and silver, as this medium of exchange. The reasons for this are many. PMs have real value in and of themselves. They can be broken down into usable quantities (from large bullion to small coins). The amount of them available in society can not be quickly, nor infinitely increased. In short, they provide value, ease of use, and stability.
Monetary units (such as dollars) are simply known quantities of some precious metals. By definition, a dollar was the equivalent of one ounce of silver. (The British Pound Sterling was just that - a pound of sterling silver). At the time of the formation of the U. S. Constitution, gold was considered to have roughly twenty times the value of silver - hence a 'dollar' was also one twentieth an ounce of gold, or an ounce of gold was twenty dollars. That is, the value of gold or silver did not fluctuate in terms of dollars, but the value of a dollar would fluctuate if the value of gold or silver fluctuated. Things were essentially this way for the better part of 150 years. If you had a dollar, that meant you had an ounce of silver or a twentieth of an ounce of gold. If silver or gold for some reason increased or decreased in value, your purchasing power increased or decreased with it. However, due to the nature of things, rapid or large fluctations in the value of precious metals rarely occur.
In times past, such as during the late stages of the Roman Empire, governments would devalue the currency by 'clipping' the coins. That is, they would collect coins (through taxation or whatever means), shave off portions of the gold or silver, then mint new coins with the shavings. A coin that was say one ounce, may then be 0.9 ounce, but, have the same 'face value' even though the real value had diminished. Also, there were now more coins made from the same amount of PM.
Now suppose you were a Roman merchant who was selling an item for an amount equal to nine ounces of PM. Previously, you collected nine 1 ounce coins. Now, to obtain the same quantity, you needed ten 0.9 ounce coins. (Obviously, I am simplifying here). The result? There are more coins (therefore, supposedly more 'money' available for exchange) in the market, but prices have gone up. That is, the currency has been devalued. Prices have risen. People may seemingly have more 'money' in their pocket, but, their purchasing power has not improved. This is inflation.
Please note, inflation is not a rising of prices. The rising of prices is a result of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of the currency.
Over the centuries other innovations have made this practice more convenient for the government devaluers (counterfeiters) to ply their trade. The most useful innovation has been the introduction of paper money.
Paper money began as what could be termed bank notes. Someone may not want to store their reserves of PM in their own home. Businesses which were essentially warehouses for PMs developed. One could deposit his PM in the warehouse, and the warehouse would issue him a paper receipt or receipts. Suppose I deposited 25 ounces of gold and 100 ounces of silver in the warehouse. I get receipts stating that I have this (maybe I get twenty five receipts each worth one ounce of gold, and 100 receipts each worth one ounce of silver). Now, I do not carry all this gold and silver around with me, but I can redeem any or all of my receipts whenever I desire. If I buy an item priced at one silver ounce, I could trade my receipt for it. Now, the merchant I traded with can redeem that receipt upon demand and receive the actual silver. (Likely, the warehouse (bank) would charge some type of holding and processing fee for this service.)
Now, these banks began to get creative. They determined that rarely if ever did they have a run on all deposits. At any time, they had the overwhelming majority of deposits on hand. Therefore, they began 'loaning' some of the reserves that they had. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking. So, just using my deposits for example. I may come in and out occasionally and deposit more, or withdraw some, but on the whole, my balance is staying somewhere near what I originally deposited. The bank may then write out another receipt against my deposit and give it to another individual as a loan that must be repaid. So, now for my one deposit, there are two sets of receipts in circulation. The borrower then goes and somehow invests this, trying to make a return. He may go turn his certificate over to a merchant who sells him some equipment that he uses to provide a good or service to make more money. If he makes a return, he pays back the borrowed credit, with interest. The bank has made money. As long as I, and the others who are now holding certificates against my deposits do not demand our PMs at the same time, the bank is safe. However, obviously, the larger the overlending verses the amount actually on reserve, the larger the risk the banker is taking. Also, the riskier the investment, the more risk of the bank failing.
Fractional reserve banking has caused some problems during economically troubled times in the past. In fact, it has actually caused some of the economic problems themselves. For one, this has inflated the currency (If the banker 'loans out' receipts equal to my original deposit, he has essentially doubled the currency in circulation, thereby lowering its value, much like the coin clippers of old)
During much of the 19th century, American politicians struggled with these issues. On the one hand were the bankers, licking their chops to use fractional reserve banking, along with the politicians they backed to help foster the system. On the other hand, were more economically conservative politicians who fought against this system.
Finally, in 1913, perhaps the greatest debacle in the history of American economics occured. The Federal Reserve system went into effect. Since that time, they have continued along a path that has gone further and further in the direction of currency devaluation.
The climax of this has been to utimately remove all ties from our paper money to any PM, along with the passage of 'legal tender' laws. Not too many years ago, your paper money had a noted on it saying it could be redeemed for 'real money' (i.e. silver or gold). That is no longer the case. Now, it is simply a note that we are forced by law to accept as legal tender for all debts. In reality it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. (And nowadays, often it is not even that, but is simply an electronic blip on a computer program). You could have piles and piles of hundred dollar bills, and they are absolutely worthless in and of themselves (unlike silver or gold) and the ONLY reason they have value is because the government by law forces everyone to accept them as tender.
So, now the 'value' of a dollar is not tied to PMs. It therefore can fluctuate tremendously. As stated previously, one of the major reasons why PMs became used as a medium of exchange is because they could not be quickly and easily devalued by a sudden large influx. (It is not impossible that this could happen, as it happened in Spain when they obtained huge amounts of gold from the Americas during the 16th century - another story for another post at another time!) However, it can not easily and frequently happen.
However, when paper that is printed solely at the governments discretion and is forced to be used as legal tender is the only allowable legal tender, the government can inflate the currency at will. A huge influx of this so called money into the economy does not add one whitt of wealth to the economy, but only devalues the currency.
Our wealth as a nation is the sum total of all our productivity. In reality, money is only a medium of exchange for that productivity. If suddenly the government prints one trillion dollars and injects that into the economy, it has not increased our wealth one iota. All it has done is make the buying power of each unit (dollar) that much less. This can cause widespread destruction.
Suppose you are 70 years old, have worked hard all your life, have saved, invested, and smartly handled your money and you now have a net value of one million dollars. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? However, if the government suddenly prints and circulates trillions of dollars into the economy, now your one million dollars is worth a fraction of what it once was. All your hard work and intelligence just went down the drain. This is happening to millions of Americans right now.
Well, in our current hard financial situation (which has been caused by the very monetary policies we are talking about) the Messiah's, uh, I mean the President's plan for fixing it is to inject tons of money into the economy. See how utterly senseless this is?
Not one person in a hundred understands this. The average Joe, while possibly thinking something might be amiss in what is going on, at least on some level thinks that injecting money to 'jump start' the economy is a good thing.
In actuality, it is a travesty - and one we will be suffering from for a long time to come.
This inflationary monetary policy is actually harmful in many many more ways than I can even begin to talk about here. This policy, and not the unfettered free market, causes the business 'boom and bust' cycles we have seen throughout our history. We have just come out of a long 'boom' and are now going into a huge 'bust.' The best that our current policy of stimulous can do is to continue to artifically lengthen the aritificial 'boom' and forestall the inevitable 'bust,' while making the eventual 'bust' just that much more severe. I fear we are near a breaking point where no matter what happens, soon the 'bust' will be irreversable - perhaps leading to a total cultural meltdown. The only way to fully and finally recover is to allow the 'bust' to run its course - as painful as that may be, then to restore a sound monetary policy in its wake.
Austrian economists (see the Woods link above, or that of the Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell Report to the right) have been saying this for years, only to be labeled lunatics. However, I think it is undeniable that the only solution to this situation is to somehow someway get back on some sort of Precious Metal ("honest money") monetary system with little or no government intervention.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
An open letter to President Obama, and all people in power
Dear President Obama,
You may want to consider the following words from a 'Good Book' that I have:
Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Thank you for your time.
You may want to consider the following words from a 'Good Book' that I have:
Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Thank you for your time.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Fooled Again?
A blogger friend of mine (The Sun Stands Still - linked at the right) posted the following quote from Mark Horne concerning Obama:
"Obama’s arrival is change from the Bush administration the way a baby is change from a pregnancy. He’s not a repudiation; he’s the ultimate end."
When I read that, I immediately thought of that classic hard rock anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again." by The Who. (I know - I'm kinda weird). The lyrics seem to speak of a 'revolutionary' change of power, which only results in more of the same.
Look up the lyrics on the internet - they're easy enough to find. I am sure The Who were not politically (or religiously, or in any ways) near any form of agreement with Evangelical Christianity, yet taken generically, the lyrics to this song are actually, for rock music, pretty profound.
The climactic final lines of that song demonstrate a similar thought to those of Mark Horne:
"Meet the new boss.......Same as the old boss!"
"Obama’s arrival is change from the Bush administration the way a baby is change from a pregnancy. He’s not a repudiation; he’s the ultimate end."
When I read that, I immediately thought of that classic hard rock anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again." by The Who. (I know - I'm kinda weird). The lyrics seem to speak of a 'revolutionary' change of power, which only results in more of the same.
Look up the lyrics on the internet - they're easy enough to find. I am sure The Who were not politically (or religiously, or in any ways) near any form of agreement with Evangelical Christianity, yet taken generically, the lyrics to this song are actually, for rock music, pretty profound.
The climactic final lines of that song demonstrate a similar thought to those of Mark Horne:
"Meet the new boss.......Same as the old boss!"
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Keynesian 'Solution'
Dictionary.com describes John Maynard Keynes as follows:
1883–1946, English economist and writer.
British economist who proposed that high unemployment, being a result of insufficient consumer spending, could be relieved by government-sponsored programs. He also advocated deficit spending by governments to stimulate ecomomic activity.
English economist who advocated the use of government monetary and fiscal policy to maintain full employment without inflation
Keynesian economics has dominated the American political economy for decades, going back at least to the great depression. It was Keynesian policy which FDR used to get us out (cough, gag) of the depression. In the late 1960s early 1970s Richard Nixon (who had taken us off the gold standard completely) stated “We’re all Keynesian now.”
Virtually every president since at least FDR has been to some extent or the other, Keynesian, no matter what else you may say about him. That even includes Reagan, though possibly to a lesser extent.
As can be seen from the above definitions, one of the main, perhaps THE main tenant of Keynesian economics is that during times of economic slowdown, the government should spend money on infrastructure and various projects in order to provide jobs, spur consumer spending, etc. This, supposedly will get the economy through the tough times. Once the economy recovers, the government spending can be curtailed. It is a form of planned economy.
Sounds good on paper to the layman, but there are more than a few drawbacks.
To start with, it really does not work. As I have said elsewhere, the state of the economy was at least as bad, if not worse in the late 1930s, after years of FDR, than it was when FDR took over. FDRs programs were, among many other things, Keynesian.
It is not a natural thing for the whole economy to be in a downturn all at the same time. Unfortunately, most people think that the free market will frequently result in a total economic meltdown, at which point some government intervention (in the form, at least, of Keynesian policies, if not outright socialism) is required. However, while no possible economic system can ever insulate every individual from hardship, the free market will never end up in an economic meltdown. The meltdowns that do occur (such as 1929 onward and our current situation) are almost always directly related to government intervention. However, the solution proposed by our government leaders? More government intervention. Make sense to you??? Yeah, me neither.
1929 was the result of government intervention. The as bad or worse situation of 1938 was due to continued government intervention.
Second, it is as close to an absolute fact as anything in the world that once government spending is started, it is not stopped. Many of the programs for economic recovery of the 1930s are still with us today. This causes continued deficits and other problems which result in further economy wide problems on down the road.
Third, and most importantly, there are long term negative effects of this type of spending (deficits and higher taxes and the further economic hardships that occur due to these things). When asked about what the effects of his policy would be in the long run, Keynes himself famously quipped, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” There ya go. That’s the philosophy we want to hand down to our kids, right? We want policy which we believe (rightly or wrongly) will benefit us, but who gives a rip what it will do to our descendents? Sure, count me in. I don’t care what Jr. says.
Now, what to do about our current mess? First off, let us be clear. Our problems are not the result of the free market gone wild. Our problems are directly related to over arching government intervention into the lives and businesses of individuals and corporations, from bad, even terrible tax policy, from wretched spending programs, from freedom squelching regulations, from currency devaluing monetary policy, and on and on. The proposed solution? More government. Create money out of thin air and spend it on ‘infrastructure,’ and a myriad of other social programs. In short, the current proposed solutions are the same old tired Keynesian policies which have actually contributed to the current mess.
In the end, I have no idea exactly how all this will turn out. But I can promise you, absent any major change, the direction we are heading is wrong. We can keep putting band-aids on our severed jugulars and keep the patient alive until hopefully, in the long run, we are all dead, OR we can care about our descendents and try to fix the problems permanently with sound, honest money, low taxes, limited government, and so forth.
What do you think?
1883–1946, English economist and writer.
British economist who proposed that high unemployment, being a result of insufficient consumer spending, could be relieved by government-sponsored programs. He also advocated deficit spending by governments to stimulate ecomomic activity.
English economist who advocated the use of government monetary and fiscal policy to maintain full employment without inflation
Keynesian economics has dominated the American political economy for decades, going back at least to the great depression. It was Keynesian policy which FDR used to get us out (cough, gag) of the depression. In the late 1960s early 1970s Richard Nixon (who had taken us off the gold standard completely) stated “We’re all Keynesian now.”
Virtually every president since at least FDR has been to some extent or the other, Keynesian, no matter what else you may say about him. That even includes Reagan, though possibly to a lesser extent.
As can be seen from the above definitions, one of the main, perhaps THE main tenant of Keynesian economics is that during times of economic slowdown, the government should spend money on infrastructure and various projects in order to provide jobs, spur consumer spending, etc. This, supposedly will get the economy through the tough times. Once the economy recovers, the government spending can be curtailed. It is a form of planned economy.
Sounds good on paper to the layman, but there are more than a few drawbacks.
To start with, it really does not work. As I have said elsewhere, the state of the economy was at least as bad, if not worse in the late 1930s, after years of FDR, than it was when FDR took over. FDRs programs were, among many other things, Keynesian.
It is not a natural thing for the whole economy to be in a downturn all at the same time. Unfortunately, most people think that the free market will frequently result in a total economic meltdown, at which point some government intervention (in the form, at least, of Keynesian policies, if not outright socialism) is required. However, while no possible economic system can ever insulate every individual from hardship, the free market will never end up in an economic meltdown. The meltdowns that do occur (such as 1929 onward and our current situation) are almost always directly related to government intervention. However, the solution proposed by our government leaders? More government intervention. Make sense to you??? Yeah, me neither.
1929 was the result of government intervention. The as bad or worse situation of 1938 was due to continued government intervention.
Second, it is as close to an absolute fact as anything in the world that once government spending is started, it is not stopped. Many of the programs for economic recovery of the 1930s are still with us today. This causes continued deficits and other problems which result in further economy wide problems on down the road.
Third, and most importantly, there are long term negative effects of this type of spending (deficits and higher taxes and the further economic hardships that occur due to these things). When asked about what the effects of his policy would be in the long run, Keynes himself famously quipped, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” There ya go. That’s the philosophy we want to hand down to our kids, right? We want policy which we believe (rightly or wrongly) will benefit us, but who gives a rip what it will do to our descendents? Sure, count me in. I don’t care what Jr. says.
Now, what to do about our current mess? First off, let us be clear. Our problems are not the result of the free market gone wild. Our problems are directly related to over arching government intervention into the lives and businesses of individuals and corporations, from bad, even terrible tax policy, from wretched spending programs, from freedom squelching regulations, from currency devaluing monetary policy, and on and on. The proposed solution? More government. Create money out of thin air and spend it on ‘infrastructure,’ and a myriad of other social programs. In short, the current proposed solutions are the same old tired Keynesian policies which have actually contributed to the current mess.
In the end, I have no idea exactly how all this will turn out. But I can promise you, absent any major change, the direction we are heading is wrong. We can keep putting band-aids on our severed jugulars and keep the patient alive until hopefully, in the long run, we are all dead, OR we can care about our descendents and try to fix the problems permanently with sound, honest money, low taxes, limited government, and so forth.
What do you think?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A bunch of random thoughts concerning the election
In no particular order, kind of a 'stream of consiousness' thing:
1. I have read many comments from liberals about the fact that poor ole McCain supporters were not really for McCain, but just AGAINST Obama, as if that is in any ways important. If you are a liberal with this view, suppose one side was someone you really did not much care for (say George Bush) and the other side was Adolph Hitler. Would you be more voting for Bush or against Hitler? The choices are what they are and a person just has to make what he thinks is the wisest choice among what is there - even though he may not like even the wisest choice. In my case, I decided to cast a vote that I could feel good about (3rd Party vote) even knowing the guy had a zero chance of winning. Admittedly, if the race would have been close in Alabama, I would have voted for McCain.
2. I don't for the life of me understand why when there is potentially really controversial information about a candidate, it is wrong for us to wonder about it or even speak about it. There have of course been rumors that Obama was Muslim. I have heard rumors that he had been addicted to Cocaine at one point in his life. I had heard rumors that he was gay or bi. Now, admittedly these may be crazy. They may be flat made up. They may be totally baseless. My personal feeling right now is that Obama is not a Muslim (more on this later, though). I do not think he shows any characteristics of a drug addict, although I have actually seen him admit to smoking pot frequently when he was younger. I really know nothing about his sexual preferences, but have no knowledge of any deviancy on his part. So, unless someone could really produce evidence for any of these, then of course it is silly, immature, and unChristian to spread such rumors around. If there is any evidence for any of these, then I think they are legitimate concerns and are open for discussion in a campaign.
However, there are are other areas in which there have been persistent rumors that seem to have more backbone. Mr. Obama's past activities and ties with other people and organizations would say a lot about who he is. He has been associated with who knows who.
At the very least we could talk about Jeremiah Wright. 'Pastor' Wright has openly touted 'Black Liberation Theology" and the writings of James H. Cone including "A Black Theology of Racism" (you can find Wright touting this book on youtube and he has in the past at least, cited this book as a founding document for his church. ) This book and this man and this "theology" which term is used in the loosest way possible, is simply hate filled anti-American racism. The major premise of the book is that community defines theology. Therefore, the 'black' community can define a 'black theology" that suits their needs. Of course, the other premise is that historical orthodox Christian theology is "White Theology" which has been used to oppress blacks. Note here then that 'theology' which correctly would be the objective study of God with no racial connotations at all now becomes the subjective statement of our own racial prejudices clothed in the righteous garb of religion. There is 'oppresive' white theology and black 'liberation' theology. Where is God in this view?
According to Cone and Wright, they can not worship a God who is not on the side of the Black Liberation movement. If God is on the 'side' of Whiteness then they hate that God.
Here are a few excerpts from this book:
1. "[W]hiteness is the symbol of the Anti-christ."
2. "The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods."
3. "The black experience is the feeling one has when attacking the enemy of black humanity by throwing a Molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it go up in flames. We know, of course, that getting rid of evil takes something more than burning down buildings, but one must start somewhere."
4. "Black theology seeks to analyze the satanic nature of whiteness and by doing so prepare all nonwhites for revolutionary action."
5. "We have reached our limit of tolerance, and if it means death with dignity or life with humiliation we will choose the former. And if that is the choice, we will take some honkies with us."
6. "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores."
Now, I ask you dear reader, rearrange the black and white above and what would our media do to anyone even remotely associated with it? Anyone white who can even by the third or fourth degree be remotely associated with anyone even remotely racist can have their any hope of attaining public office destroyed. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? Remember Trent Lott?
But, what did we do in this case? We elected a man president who for twenty years attended a church that was self described as based on these racists writings/rantings. Then, when it briefly became a political issue, he dropped it like a hot rock and the rest of us are suppose to just shut up and never mention it?? Excuse me??? I am absolutely sure I would get labeled a racist by some for even mentioning it here.
No, I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. I believe Obama is a lifelong member of a church that falsely uses the name of Christ to buttress marxism and anti-white bigotry.
Add to this other known ties at some level or other with terrorists, Chicago mafia types, marxists, vote fraud scams and the like and there is tons of smoke, but we simply must assume that there is absolutely no fire. If we want to do a fire investigation, we are labeled as fearmongers, haters, racists, etc. It really boggles the mind.
3. Sarah Palin was absolutely unready to be President, we are told. But Barack? Oh noooo. Time as a street agitator, a while in the Illinois State House, and a hudnred some days in the Senate make him uniquely qualified for the most powerful job in the world. Wright, er. Right.
4. I didn't much care for McCain, that is for sure. I do think much that McCain would do would be much the same as Bush. I do not agree at all with the direction of the country under Bush. I think we are heading in the wrong direction. However, with politics, there is a multitude of directions we could go. It is not that we go the MCCain way or we go the Obama way (which in a lot of instances are not all that different) There are a million other directions to proceed. So it is not just that since I do not like the current direction, I must vote for the change that Obama represents.
5. As bad as I think Bush has been and McCain would have been, it would still be far easier to turn things back and right the ship had McCain been elected. If Obama get's his way, and with majorities in both houses, he might, he can do almost irreperable damage. Once you let the cat of socialized medicine out of the bag, you absolutely can not be put back in. If his policies go through, we are stuck with them short of a revolution of colonial American proportions.
6. Related to this, let's just be as clear as possible. Obama is a socialist. I know I am not suppose to say this just like we are not suppose to bring up any ties to any shady characters in his past (or present). But it is the truth. People misunderstand this in many ways. a. they do not even know what socialism is b. they think they know and they actually think it is a good thing. c. they think it is allowed in the constitution d. they think it is Christian, etc. All of these thoughts are dead wrong. Socialism not only has never really worked (though through extensive use of smoke and mirrors has been made to look like it is working for a time) but actually socialism CAN NEVER work. It is an impossibility. it inevitably leads to lower standards of living and higher government power and persecution. It is impossible for it to do otherwise.
7. Obama has given indication that he will go to great lenghts not only to not allow further restricitons on abortions but to propogate more and more abortions. He has stated that the first thing he would do as president is sign the freedom of choice legislation. Ok, we know where his prioirities lie. In Illinois, he voted against legislation that would have protected the life of a child that survived an abortion procedure. Instead, they were just throwing the child in the garbage to die. Even many other liberal pro-aborts supported this legislation, but not Mr. Obamonation. Obama would be by far the most pro-abortion President in the history of the United States. What, therefore will he do in court appointments? What legislation will he push, and sign if it passes? If you are a Christian and voted for Obama, how do you justify voting for someone who is so pro-abortion?
8. Obama has given indications that he is rabidly pro-gay agenda. Now, I do not mean to imply that a candidate for president should desire to bust into homes of homosexuals and cart them off to the Gulags. Although I find the practice disgusting, and a horrible abomination against a holy God for which there will be a price to pay, I do not think it necessarily the job of the government, esp from a presidential office, to interfere with what two consenting adults may do in private. (The church has a major job to do here, for sure, though! But that is through preaching, teaching, admonishing, ministering, etc.)
But, if Mr. Obama gets his way, it may soon be illegal to preach against homosexuality. The homosexual agenda may be ramrodded at our kids through the schools, etc.
The link below is to a blog by a Robert Gagnon. Now, he is not some sort of blinded conservative. He is actually from a theologically far more liberal tradition than I. He has written a book about the Biblical view of homosexual practice that has garnered rave reviews by both conservative and liberal reviewers, even a liberal homsexual advocate. In other words, he is not simply on some sort of conservative soapbox. However, he details his concerns here about the above items (Obama's views on abortion and homosexuality) There are tons of links on this as well.
Again, how/why would a Christian have voted for this man?
http://robgagnon.net/ObamaWarOnChristians.htm
9. I am not the least bit upset over the fact that a black man got elected. I actually can truly understand why millions of black Ameicans would be very excited at the prospect of voting for a Black man. I have not experienced what they have. While there is a lot that is perception, there is a lot of reality to the history of blacks in this nation as being in an oppressed state. This is vindication of sorts for them. I understand that.
In fact, I am all for racial reconciliation and a Black president could go a long way toward that end.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with Obama. His policies will do far more harm than good, maybe even irreparable harm. I believe at the very least he has some very bigoted associates. He is from a marxist background. He is pro-death, pro-gay agenda. He is not the person, regardless of his race or gender, to lead this nation where it needs to go. He is apparently going to lead it in precisely the opposite direction than where it needs to go.
I hope it is obvious to anyone reading this that neither I, nor millions of other, white conservatives were against Obma because he is Black. We are against him because of his issues.
10. Nontheless, I am adamant that we all, black, white, liberal, conservative, need to pray for our leaders - democrat, republican, white, black, male, female, conservative, liberal. We need to pray not that our will or their will be done, but that God's will be done to His Glory and for our good.
1. I have read many comments from liberals about the fact that poor ole McCain supporters were not really for McCain, but just AGAINST Obama, as if that is in any ways important. If you are a liberal with this view, suppose one side was someone you really did not much care for (say George Bush) and the other side was Adolph Hitler. Would you be more voting for Bush or against Hitler? The choices are what they are and a person just has to make what he thinks is the wisest choice among what is there - even though he may not like even the wisest choice. In my case, I decided to cast a vote that I could feel good about (3rd Party vote) even knowing the guy had a zero chance of winning. Admittedly, if the race would have been close in Alabama, I would have voted for McCain.
2. I don't for the life of me understand why when there is potentially really controversial information about a candidate, it is wrong for us to wonder about it or even speak about it. There have of course been rumors that Obama was Muslim. I have heard rumors that he had been addicted to Cocaine at one point in his life. I had heard rumors that he was gay or bi. Now, admittedly these may be crazy. They may be flat made up. They may be totally baseless. My personal feeling right now is that Obama is not a Muslim (more on this later, though). I do not think he shows any characteristics of a drug addict, although I have actually seen him admit to smoking pot frequently when he was younger. I really know nothing about his sexual preferences, but have no knowledge of any deviancy on his part. So, unless someone could really produce evidence for any of these, then of course it is silly, immature, and unChristian to spread such rumors around. If there is any evidence for any of these, then I think they are legitimate concerns and are open for discussion in a campaign.
However, there are are other areas in which there have been persistent rumors that seem to have more backbone. Mr. Obama's past activities and ties with other people and organizations would say a lot about who he is. He has been associated with who knows who.
At the very least we could talk about Jeremiah Wright. 'Pastor' Wright has openly touted 'Black Liberation Theology" and the writings of James H. Cone including "A Black Theology of Racism" (you can find Wright touting this book on youtube and he has in the past at least, cited this book as a founding document for his church. ) This book and this man and this "theology" which term is used in the loosest way possible, is simply hate filled anti-American racism. The major premise of the book is that community defines theology. Therefore, the 'black' community can define a 'black theology" that suits their needs. Of course, the other premise is that historical orthodox Christian theology is "White Theology" which has been used to oppress blacks. Note here then that 'theology' which correctly would be the objective study of God with no racial connotations at all now becomes the subjective statement of our own racial prejudices clothed in the righteous garb of religion. There is 'oppresive' white theology and black 'liberation' theology. Where is God in this view?
According to Cone and Wright, they can not worship a God who is not on the side of the Black Liberation movement. If God is on the 'side' of Whiteness then they hate that God.
Here are a few excerpts from this book:
1. "[W]hiteness is the symbol of the Anti-christ."
2. "The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods."
3. "The black experience is the feeling one has when attacking the enemy of black humanity by throwing a Molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it go up in flames. We know, of course, that getting rid of evil takes something more than burning down buildings, but one must start somewhere."
4. "Black theology seeks to analyze the satanic nature of whiteness and by doing so prepare all nonwhites for revolutionary action."
5. "We have reached our limit of tolerance, and if it means death with dignity or life with humiliation we will choose the former. And if that is the choice, we will take some honkies with us."
6. "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores."
Now, I ask you dear reader, rearrange the black and white above and what would our media do to anyone even remotely associated with it? Anyone white who can even by the third or fourth degree be remotely associated with anyone even remotely racist can have their any hope of attaining public office destroyed. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? Remember Trent Lott?
But, what did we do in this case? We elected a man president who for twenty years attended a church that was self described as based on these racists writings/rantings. Then, when it briefly became a political issue, he dropped it like a hot rock and the rest of us are suppose to just shut up and never mention it?? Excuse me??? I am absolutely sure I would get labeled a racist by some for even mentioning it here.
No, I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. I believe Obama is a lifelong member of a church that falsely uses the name of Christ to buttress marxism and anti-white bigotry.
Add to this other known ties at some level or other with terrorists, Chicago mafia types, marxists, vote fraud scams and the like and there is tons of smoke, but we simply must assume that there is absolutely no fire. If we want to do a fire investigation, we are labeled as fearmongers, haters, racists, etc. It really boggles the mind.
3. Sarah Palin was absolutely unready to be President, we are told. But Barack? Oh noooo. Time as a street agitator, a while in the Illinois State House, and a hudnred some days in the Senate make him uniquely qualified for the most powerful job in the world. Wright, er. Right.
4. I didn't much care for McCain, that is for sure. I do think much that McCain would do would be much the same as Bush. I do not agree at all with the direction of the country under Bush. I think we are heading in the wrong direction. However, with politics, there is a multitude of directions we could go. It is not that we go the MCCain way or we go the Obama way (which in a lot of instances are not all that different) There are a million other directions to proceed. So it is not just that since I do not like the current direction, I must vote for the change that Obama represents.
5. As bad as I think Bush has been and McCain would have been, it would still be far easier to turn things back and right the ship had McCain been elected. If Obama get's his way, and with majorities in both houses, he might, he can do almost irreperable damage. Once you let the cat of socialized medicine out of the bag, you absolutely can not be put back in. If his policies go through, we are stuck with them short of a revolution of colonial American proportions.
6. Related to this, let's just be as clear as possible. Obama is a socialist. I know I am not suppose to say this just like we are not suppose to bring up any ties to any shady characters in his past (or present). But it is the truth. People misunderstand this in many ways. a. they do not even know what socialism is b. they think they know and they actually think it is a good thing. c. they think it is allowed in the constitution d. they think it is Christian, etc. All of these thoughts are dead wrong. Socialism not only has never really worked (though through extensive use of smoke and mirrors has been made to look like it is working for a time) but actually socialism CAN NEVER work. It is an impossibility. it inevitably leads to lower standards of living and higher government power and persecution. It is impossible for it to do otherwise.
7. Obama has given indication that he will go to great lenghts not only to not allow further restricitons on abortions but to propogate more and more abortions. He has stated that the first thing he would do as president is sign the freedom of choice legislation. Ok, we know where his prioirities lie. In Illinois, he voted against legislation that would have protected the life of a child that survived an abortion procedure. Instead, they were just throwing the child in the garbage to die. Even many other liberal pro-aborts supported this legislation, but not Mr. Obamonation. Obama would be by far the most pro-abortion President in the history of the United States. What, therefore will he do in court appointments? What legislation will he push, and sign if it passes? If you are a Christian and voted for Obama, how do you justify voting for someone who is so pro-abortion?
8. Obama has given indications that he is rabidly pro-gay agenda. Now, I do not mean to imply that a candidate for president should desire to bust into homes of homosexuals and cart them off to the Gulags. Although I find the practice disgusting, and a horrible abomination against a holy God for which there will be a price to pay, I do not think it necessarily the job of the government, esp from a presidential office, to interfere with what two consenting adults may do in private. (The church has a major job to do here, for sure, though! But that is through preaching, teaching, admonishing, ministering, etc.)
But, if Mr. Obama gets his way, it may soon be illegal to preach against homosexuality. The homosexual agenda may be ramrodded at our kids through the schools, etc.
The link below is to a blog by a Robert Gagnon. Now, he is not some sort of blinded conservative. He is actually from a theologically far more liberal tradition than I. He has written a book about the Biblical view of homosexual practice that has garnered rave reviews by both conservative and liberal reviewers, even a liberal homsexual advocate. In other words, he is not simply on some sort of conservative soapbox. However, he details his concerns here about the above items (Obama's views on abortion and homosexuality) There are tons of links on this as well.
Again, how/why would a Christian have voted for this man?
http://robgagnon.net/ObamaWarOnChristians.htm
9. I am not the least bit upset over the fact that a black man got elected. I actually can truly understand why millions of black Ameicans would be very excited at the prospect of voting for a Black man. I have not experienced what they have. While there is a lot that is perception, there is a lot of reality to the history of blacks in this nation as being in an oppressed state. This is vindication of sorts for them. I understand that.
In fact, I am all for racial reconciliation and a Black president could go a long way toward that end.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with Obama. His policies will do far more harm than good, maybe even irreparable harm. I believe at the very least he has some very bigoted associates. He is from a marxist background. He is pro-death, pro-gay agenda. He is not the person, regardless of his race or gender, to lead this nation where it needs to go. He is apparently going to lead it in precisely the opposite direction than where it needs to go.
I hope it is obvious to anyone reading this that neither I, nor millions of other, white conservatives were against Obma because he is Black. We are against him because of his issues.
10. Nontheless, I am adamant that we all, black, white, liberal, conservative, need to pray for our leaders - democrat, republican, white, black, male, female, conservative, liberal. We need to pray not that our will or their will be done, but that God's will be done to His Glory and for our good.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Further Thoughts on the Upcoming Election
The closer we get to the election, the more uncertain I become of which way to go.
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Why I Am Not A Republican
Note: This is an extremely long post. However, it is a very abbreviated attempt to explain myself. It could be a book! In an attempt to simplify, I have placed division lines in places that I believe to be good break points to facilitate possible multi-session readings.
"If the REPUBLICANS lose their little war, they go back home with their pockets lined with their war profits. I we lose the war, we lose everything."
I don’t know if that quote is completely accurate or not – I did it straight from memory – but it is close enough. Any idea who said that and under what circumstances? Read on.
I came to a finalization the other day. This has been building in me for quite some time. I have finally come to the point where I can say, without any hesitation whatsoever, that I am NOT a Republican.
That may come as quite a shock to many around me. "What, you’re a um… Dem… Demo….. Democrat????!!!!" The answer to that is yes and no. (ok, really mostly ‘no’!) Throughout the history of these United States, at certain times and places, what is today the Democratic Party has actually represented what I do indeed stand for. However, the Democratic Party of today does not even come close to representing what I believe. Yes, in many ways today’s Democratic Party is even more evil than today’s Republican Party. Yes, at times and places and amongst certain individual politicians, the Republican Party sometimes appears to approximate my beliefs. However, the party as a whole, and this almost infallibly affects each individual politician within the party, is so corrupted as to be viewed in my opinion as evil, and a vote for a Republican is almost never a vote for the good, but a vote for the lesser of two huge evils. However, my view of the Republican Party as repulsive is not based on it being a good political party that has slipped away slowly and become bad. No, the Republican Party was evil from its inception. The Republican Party is actually (and this may stun many today) THE party of big government in the United States.
I think I can summarize the two parties this way. The Democratic Party was a very good party that over the course of several decades, and now even a couple of centuries, has morphed into a very bad party. The Republican Party was a very bad party that over the course of about one hundred and fifty years has not changed a whole lot. About the only change in the Republicans which gives them some air of goodness, came from the 1960s through the 1980s. Between Lyndon Johnson’s Great Scam Programs and Barry Goldwater’s anti-communism, through Reagan’s optimism, some of the last limited government and pro-morality folks finally ditched the Democrats and joined with the Republicans. Unfortunately, in the almost thirty years since Reagan, they have really accomplished very little. Overall, they are still a minority within the Republican Party. They, to the Republican Party itself, are like the African Americans to the Democratic Party. – that is, they are a near guaranteed block of votes that the party itself can step all over.
To fully understand where I am coming from, you have to have a little knowledge of U.S. History. Going all the way back to the late colonial days, through the Declaration of Independence, the years under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and throughout the first several decades of the American Nation, there were basically two views of government. The one view is that government should be limited and decentralized. The other is that government should be powerful and centralized. What follows below is really about a ten volume ten thousand page history of the United States compressed into a few pages. It is therefore, very grossly oversimplified maybe even to the point of being inaccurate at times. However, I hope the accuracy is enough to make the points I try to make.
Without going into so much detail, we can see the two competing philosophies of government during the early years of the Constitutional Republic. One side, the Federalists believed in powerful centralalized government. The central government should have broad and deep powers to do all sorts of things. However, the constitution only specifically gave them certain limited and enumerated powers. These leaders however, had a way around this limitation. It was called "broad construction". The constitution could be looked at and studied, they believed, then inferences can be drawn and powers derived for the government from those inferences. One example should suffice.
The Federalists desired a National Bank. However, the Constitution is silent about such a charter. The Federalists, though, would look at what the constitution does say. It says that the Central Government can coin money and regulate its value, it can tax, it has a treasury through which it pays its bills, etc. Given all these things and others for which a National Bank would be a natural need, and given that the Constitution does not specifically deny the Federal Government the right to charter a national bank, the Federalists drew the conclusion that a national bank was an acceptable wielding of Central government powers. This is called "Broad Construction." They read and interpreted the Constitution broadly, not narrowly.
The other side believed in more limited constitutional powers. These people were invariably called "anti-federalists" but as a political party grew from them it was known first as the Republican Party - a party which has over the passing couple of centuries has morphed into today’s Democratic Party. That’s right, kids, our modern democratic party has at its roots a belief in limited, decentralized, constitutional government! On the question of a national bank, they would have simply responded that the constitution, as it stood, gave absolutely no authority to the central government to charter a national bank. End of story. This is called "Strict Construction."
Leaders of the broad construction federalists included probably most notably Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The most prominent early member of the anti-federalist republicans was Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, James Madison started on the federalist side, even writing several of the famous "Federalist Papers," but fairly early on moved more in the direction of Jefferson and the Republicans.
In the early years of the 19th century, the Federalists as a party dried up and went away. Their most effective leader was Hamilton who lost his life in a duel. Their other effective leader was Adams who had a one-term presidency and was not hugely popular or successful as a president. Most of the prominent federalists were New Englanders, while most of the prominent Republicans were from the Middle Colonies, most notably Virginia. The Federalists Party became almost a regional party rather than a national party. The Republicans (which began to be called the Jeffersonian Republicans, or the Democratic-Republicans) were far more of a national party and therefore, they held the White House for several terms. Jefferson was followed by Madison who was followed by Monroe. All of these were Virginia Democrat-Republicans. They were followed by John Quincy Adams who, as the son of John Adams was in fact a northeasterner, but probably had a political bent somewhere in between the two sides. He was followed by the southerner Andrew Jackson. By this time, the party had more or less taken on the name "Democratic" and was in fact trying to place itself as primarily a ‘party of the people’ – one of those platitudes that sound good but is in fact meaningless.
So, by the 1820s the Federalist Party was dead and buried and what was called the Republican Party had somewhat evolved into what was now called the Democratic Party. However, certainly among many democrats, strict construction along with limited, decentralized government was still a motivating factor. If you held to this belief, this was your party. The broad construction, powerful central government beast kept raising its head, however. Most notably during the next couple of decades this was within what was known as the "Whig Party," taking its name from the English party system.
The Whigs also, over time, while obtaining varying levels of power including the White House, eventually became marginalized much like the Federalists.
So, by the 1850s, the original party of Jefferson had become the Democratic Party. It held many factions, including those who believed in limited central government based on a strict construction of the Constitution. There were other more ‘moderate’ wings within the Democratic Party also, who believed in somewhat more power to be wielded on behalf of ‘the people.’ There were also numerous small factions of special interests groups, many of whom were somewhat radical (such as radical abolitionists) who did not have a major party to rely on. The big business powers were only partially empowered in the Democratic Party, but were not numerous enough to have a party of their own that could yield any notable power.
________________________________________________________________________________
There were other things going on during the middle decades of the 19th Century – trends and events that really deserve deep discussion but will only be briefly mentioned here.
The nation began moving westward. This had many effects. The eastern seaboard had always been the seat of power – especially economically. As things evolved, this was changing. The centers of trade and commerce had been Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, etc. However, as the nation moved inland, the Mississippi River provided the best mode of transporting goods to port, or receiving goods from other places and distributing them. This meant New Orleans would appear to be the natural economic/trade center of the country. However, the old money powers of the Northeast could not sit idly by and watch this happen. Much of the nineteenth century political and economic history centers on this natural movement west and south, and the fighting of it from the northeastern political/economic machines. An example would be that in order to get goods from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, (just a few hundred miles across one state) it was actually cheaper to place it on a cargo boat, go along the Ohio River to the Mississippi River all the way to New Orleans, enter the Gulf of Mexico, sail around the tip of Florida, up the Atlantic Coast all the way to Philly than to ship it overland a few hundred miles. It is clear that the south, the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and especially New Orleans would prosper under these conditions. The northern money powers intended to fight such a transfer of economic power by many means.
The powers that existed in the Northeast intended to fight this trend by the building of roads, canals, railroads, etc. using central government aid. That is, all the peoples of the nation were to be taxed in some form, then that money used on internal improvements which were specifically designed to help one section or a few sections of the nation (most especially, the northeast) at the expense of others. Many would question the constitutionality of such moves.
Also related to the economic activities of the north, the north intended to use protective tariffs and other measures that would benefit them at the expense of the south. The economic interests of the north and the south were very different, as was their interests in international trade. Northern politicians backed by northern business interests attempted to manage the government in such a way as to benefit the northern business interest. However, the south had able minded politicians who fought this tooth and nail and often staved off at least some of these measures. Consider:
I. The south grew many crops well that could not be grown well to any great extent in other parts of the country (i.e. cotton, rice, indigo)
II. The south had a huge market for these agricultural raw materials in England. Therefore, the south could sell these to England, and buy from England many finished products such as clothing, metal goods, etc. As a result, there was much trade between the South and England and other European nations
III. The north also produced many of the same finished products as England, and therefore was in competition with them on the world market
During the original constitutional convention the slave trade was a sticking point. The constitution put off a final vote on this issue until 1808. In 1808 they voted to stop the slave trade. What is not widely known is that many of the states had already done so on a state level, including most of the southern states. Virginia, in fact, was the first, or at least one of the first, states to stop the slave trade.
In spite of the above, slavery as a system had taken firm root in the southern states. There are innumerable reasons for this that can not be discussed in this post. However, it was not all simply a matter of their being a bunch of backwards racists pigs, nor greedy rich planters. (No doubt there were some of each, but this does not begin to explain the deep roots of slavery in the south)
Anti slavery movements were abundant in both north and south. While there were without a doubt exceptions to the rule, many southerners, even slave owners, did not like the system of slavery that existed. It was one of those things which had developed gradually over a couple of centuries and was deeply imbedded in the culture and economic system. Many people, again even slave owners themselves, wanted to find a way out. However, it is not as simple as that. It is very easy with our twenty-first century eyes to just say they should have stopped it – period. Free all the slaves and go on. But this is a near impossibility. But,
______________________________
"If the REPUBLICANS lose their little war, they go back home with their pockets lined with their war profits. I we lose the war, we lose everything."
I don’t know if that quote is completely accurate or not – I did it straight from memory – but it is close enough. Any idea who said that and under what circumstances? Read on.
I came to a finalization the other day. This has been building in me for quite some time. I have finally come to the point where I can say, without any hesitation whatsoever, that I am NOT a Republican.
That may come as quite a shock to many around me. "What, you’re a um… Dem… Demo….. Democrat????!!!!" The answer to that is yes and no. (ok, really mostly ‘no’!) Throughout the history of these United States, at certain times and places, what is today the Democratic Party has actually represented what I do indeed stand for. However, the Democratic Party of today does not even come close to representing what I believe. Yes, in many ways today’s Democratic Party is even more evil than today’s Republican Party. Yes, at times and places and amongst certain individual politicians, the Republican Party sometimes appears to approximate my beliefs. However, the party as a whole, and this almost infallibly affects each individual politician within the party, is so corrupted as to be viewed in my opinion as evil, and a vote for a Republican is almost never a vote for the good, but a vote for the lesser of two huge evils. However, my view of the Republican Party as repulsive is not based on it being a good political party that has slipped away slowly and become bad. No, the Republican Party was evil from its inception. The Republican Party is actually (and this may stun many today) THE party of big government in the United States.
I think I can summarize the two parties this way. The Democratic Party was a very good party that over the course of several decades, and now even a couple of centuries, has morphed into a very bad party. The Republican Party was a very bad party that over the course of about one hundred and fifty years has not changed a whole lot. About the only change in the Republicans which gives them some air of goodness, came from the 1960s through the 1980s. Between Lyndon Johnson’s Great Scam Programs and Barry Goldwater’s anti-communism, through Reagan’s optimism, some of the last limited government and pro-morality folks finally ditched the Democrats and joined with the Republicans. Unfortunately, in the almost thirty years since Reagan, they have really accomplished very little. Overall, they are still a minority within the Republican Party. They, to the Republican Party itself, are like the African Americans to the Democratic Party. – that is, they are a near guaranteed block of votes that the party itself can step all over.
To fully understand where I am coming from, you have to have a little knowledge of U.S. History. Going all the way back to the late colonial days, through the Declaration of Independence, the years under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and throughout the first several decades of the American Nation, there were basically two views of government. The one view is that government should be limited and decentralized. The other is that government should be powerful and centralized. What follows below is really about a ten volume ten thousand page history of the United States compressed into a few pages. It is therefore, very grossly oversimplified maybe even to the point of being inaccurate at times. However, I hope the accuracy is enough to make the points I try to make.
Without going into so much detail, we can see the two competing philosophies of government during the early years of the Constitutional Republic. One side, the Federalists believed in powerful centralalized government. The central government should have broad and deep powers to do all sorts of things. However, the constitution only specifically gave them certain limited and enumerated powers. These leaders however, had a way around this limitation. It was called "broad construction". The constitution could be looked at and studied, they believed, then inferences can be drawn and powers derived for the government from those inferences. One example should suffice.
The Federalists desired a National Bank. However, the Constitution is silent about such a charter. The Federalists, though, would look at what the constitution does say. It says that the Central Government can coin money and regulate its value, it can tax, it has a treasury through which it pays its bills, etc. Given all these things and others for which a National Bank would be a natural need, and given that the Constitution does not specifically deny the Federal Government the right to charter a national bank, the Federalists drew the conclusion that a national bank was an acceptable wielding of Central government powers. This is called "Broad Construction." They read and interpreted the Constitution broadly, not narrowly.
The other side believed in more limited constitutional powers. These people were invariably called "anti-federalists" but as a political party grew from them it was known first as the Republican Party - a party which has over the passing couple of centuries has morphed into today’s Democratic Party. That’s right, kids, our modern democratic party has at its roots a belief in limited, decentralized, constitutional government! On the question of a national bank, they would have simply responded that the constitution, as it stood, gave absolutely no authority to the central government to charter a national bank. End of story. This is called "Strict Construction."
Leaders of the broad construction federalists included probably most notably Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The most prominent early member of the anti-federalist republicans was Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, James Madison started on the federalist side, even writing several of the famous "Federalist Papers," but fairly early on moved more in the direction of Jefferson and the Republicans.
In the early years of the 19th century, the Federalists as a party dried up and went away. Their most effective leader was Hamilton who lost his life in a duel. Their other effective leader was Adams who had a one-term presidency and was not hugely popular or successful as a president. Most of the prominent federalists were New Englanders, while most of the prominent Republicans were from the Middle Colonies, most notably Virginia. The Federalists Party became almost a regional party rather than a national party. The Republicans (which began to be called the Jeffersonian Republicans, or the Democratic-Republicans) were far more of a national party and therefore, they held the White House for several terms. Jefferson was followed by Madison who was followed by Monroe. All of these were Virginia Democrat-Republicans. They were followed by John Quincy Adams who, as the son of John Adams was in fact a northeasterner, but probably had a political bent somewhere in between the two sides. He was followed by the southerner Andrew Jackson. By this time, the party had more or less taken on the name "Democratic" and was in fact trying to place itself as primarily a ‘party of the people’ – one of those platitudes that sound good but is in fact meaningless.
So, by the 1820s the Federalist Party was dead and buried and what was called the Republican Party had somewhat evolved into what was now called the Democratic Party. However, certainly among many democrats, strict construction along with limited, decentralized government was still a motivating factor. If you held to this belief, this was your party. The broad construction, powerful central government beast kept raising its head, however. Most notably during the next couple of decades this was within what was known as the "Whig Party," taking its name from the English party system.
The Whigs also, over time, while obtaining varying levels of power including the White House, eventually became marginalized much like the Federalists.
So, by the 1850s, the original party of Jefferson had become the Democratic Party. It held many factions, including those who believed in limited central government based on a strict construction of the Constitution. There were other more ‘moderate’ wings within the Democratic Party also, who believed in somewhat more power to be wielded on behalf of ‘the people.’ There were also numerous small factions of special interests groups, many of whom were somewhat radical (such as radical abolitionists) who did not have a major party to rely on. The big business powers were only partially empowered in the Democratic Party, but were not numerous enough to have a party of their own that could yield any notable power.
________________________________________________________________________________
There were other things going on during the middle decades of the 19th Century – trends and events that really deserve deep discussion but will only be briefly mentioned here.
The nation began moving westward. This had many effects. The eastern seaboard had always been the seat of power – especially economically. As things evolved, this was changing. The centers of trade and commerce had been Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, etc. However, as the nation moved inland, the Mississippi River provided the best mode of transporting goods to port, or receiving goods from other places and distributing them. This meant New Orleans would appear to be the natural economic/trade center of the country. However, the old money powers of the Northeast could not sit idly by and watch this happen. Much of the nineteenth century political and economic history centers on this natural movement west and south, and the fighting of it from the northeastern political/economic machines. An example would be that in order to get goods from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, (just a few hundred miles across one state) it was actually cheaper to place it on a cargo boat, go along the Ohio River to the Mississippi River all the way to New Orleans, enter the Gulf of Mexico, sail around the tip of Florida, up the Atlantic Coast all the way to Philly than to ship it overland a few hundred miles. It is clear that the south, the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and especially New Orleans would prosper under these conditions. The northern money powers intended to fight such a transfer of economic power by many means.
The powers that existed in the Northeast intended to fight this trend by the building of roads, canals, railroads, etc. using central government aid. That is, all the peoples of the nation were to be taxed in some form, then that money used on internal improvements which were specifically designed to help one section or a few sections of the nation (most especially, the northeast) at the expense of others. Many would question the constitutionality of such moves.
Also related to the economic activities of the north, the north intended to use protective tariffs and other measures that would benefit them at the expense of the south. The economic interests of the north and the south were very different, as was their interests in international trade. Northern politicians backed by northern business interests attempted to manage the government in such a way as to benefit the northern business interest. However, the south had able minded politicians who fought this tooth and nail and often staved off at least some of these measures. Consider:
I. The south grew many crops well that could not be grown well to any great extent in other parts of the country (i.e. cotton, rice, indigo)
II. The south had a huge market for these agricultural raw materials in England. Therefore, the south could sell these to England, and buy from England many finished products such as clothing, metal goods, etc. As a result, there was much trade between the South and England and other European nations
III. The north also produced many of the same finished products as England, and therefore was in competition with them on the world market
- To aid the North (and note it was at the expense of the south) Congress tried repeatedly to pass protective tariffs on imported goods. That is, a good coming in from England would now have a huge tax on it. This raised the price of that good in this nation. That lowered the incentive of the south to trade with England and increased the south’s dependence on the north.
- Two easily seen results of this would be that England would therefore increase its tariffs, thereby lowering their incentive to by goods from the US, partiularly the south. And the North could also raise its price on goods sold to the south and still be cheaper than goods the south would buy from England after the tariff.
- So, in sum, free trade between the southern states and England is hampered. The economy in the south is hurt both from the aspect of selling its products, as well as the aspect of purchasing needed products from elsewhere. The north gets an unearned economic boost (at least on paper) at their expense.
- This situation looks eerily similar to the situation the colonies faced in the 1760s and 1770s.
Again, much of the political/economic history of the mid 19th century is wrapped up in this struggle. Southern Democratic Politicians were able to stave off much of this activity, but it was a continuous struggle.
During the original constitutional convention the slave trade was a sticking point. The constitution put off a final vote on this issue until 1808. In 1808 they voted to stop the slave trade. What is not widely known is that many of the states had already done so on a state level, including most of the southern states. Virginia, in fact, was the first, or at least one of the first, states to stop the slave trade.
In spite of the above, slavery as a system had taken firm root in the southern states. There are innumerable reasons for this that can not be discussed in this post. However, it was not all simply a matter of their being a bunch of backwards racists pigs, nor greedy rich planters. (No doubt there were some of each, but this does not begin to explain the deep roots of slavery in the south)
Anti slavery movements were abundant in both north and south. While there were without a doubt exceptions to the rule, many southerners, even slave owners, did not like the system of slavery that existed. It was one of those things which had developed gradually over a couple of centuries and was deeply imbedded in the culture and economic system. Many people, again even slave owners themselves, wanted to find a way out. However, it is not as simple as that. It is very easy with our twenty-first century eyes to just say they should have stopped it – period. Free all the slaves and go on. But this is a near impossibility. But,
- There were some, no doubt, in both the north and the south, both slave owners and non, who desired to bring an end to the system of slavery. Some may have had some ideas, others were unsure. But all would have agreed that it was a goal to be reached, but that it may take time – years, even generations.
- No doubt there were some, both north and south, both slave owners and non, who really did not care one way or the other.
- No doubt there were some, both north and south, both slave owners and non, who actually desired the continuation, even deepening of the slave system.
- There were some, mostly northerners, who were known as ‘radical abolitionists’. They desired the immediate freeing of all the slaves and were also banging the drums of war to get it. They had no plan whatsoever with what to do with the slaves. The radical abolitionists – mostly northern, mostly religiously liberal Unitarians, had no plan with what to do with the slaves, and certainly did not want them coming their way. They just wanted to end the institution of slavery.
Religious Landscape Changing
The religious landscape of the nation was also changing. The northeast had been the center of Puritanism in the past. However, for a variety of reasons all too deep to delve into here, the north had become far more liberal religiously as well as socially and culturally. Deism, Unitarianism, and Transcendentalism permeated northern society, not to mention various streams of socialism and even atheism. This is not at all to say that there was no Biblical Christianity to be seen in the North, only that it was less pervasive than earlier eras and religious liberalism or atheism was far more widespread than before. In addition to the changing religious landscape of the North,
- The western frontier had a multifaceted religious tenor. The frontier was exposed a great deal to traveling Methodist ministers, Methodist influenced Baptist ministers, and other ‘revivalists’ types. The result was a lot of emotionalism with major ‘spiritual’ upheavals. However, there was often little depth, very few actual changed lives. Little corporate life. In short, shallow, emotional, non-communal religion.
- The South, while also greatly influenced by the new found religious revivalists tendencies, was also being influenced by the old Puritanism which had been so prevalent in the northeast during the early colonial years. That is, while the rest of the nation was in one way or another moving away from traditional biblical Christianity, the South was moving more and more in the direction of the traditional, Puritan religion.
______________________________________________
One trend that can be noted in all of this was that many of the various factions in the north were feverishly pursuing a common end – namely the destruction of Southern Culture.
Northern business interests were threatened by a strong south capable of producing agriculture, trading, and obtaining finished goods for themselves without dependence on the north. They were also fearful of the South itself becoming an international trade and commerce center.
The mostly northern, mostly religiously liberal radical abolitionists wanted an immediate and total end of slavery (not that they had a solution to posit for the aftermath). Also, the religiously liberal north were embarrased by the ‘backwards’ religiously conservative south.
It is therefore not the least bit surprising to learn that wealthy northern business interests financed the radical abolitionists, even in their sometimes terroristic, activities. All of these groups, the northern business interests, the radical abolitionists, and the otherwise religious liberals all desired the destruction of the South and a remaking of it in their image. If this sounds outlandish, crazy, kooky, all I can say is that there is a multitude of primary source evidence to support this claim.
In all this, the west was divided and dividing. Much of the tensions that finally brought about the War Between the States involved how the newly added western states would be aligned politically, socially, economically, commercially, slavery-wise, etc.
Now, the Republican Party was born in this climate. The party started in Michigan in 1854 and spread across the north within a few short years. It was made up of the remnant of Whigs (strong central government, broad constructionists), northern business/economic interests, former Free Soil Party members, disillusioned democrats, radical abolitionists, and others. Almost all of these were devoted to one extent or the other, to the crushing of Southern Culture. After some level of success in the intervening years, by 1860 the Republicans had a viable presidential candidate in Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln was and is an interesting and intriguing, even enigmatic figure. The one thing nearly all historians agree on, though, is that Lincoln’s primary interest was in preserving the Union whole. That is, Lincoln was first and foremost a Unionist. Lincoln, interestingly, had served as an attorney for large northern businesses. He had also served in the House of Representatives. On the one hand, he would have stated himself to be personally against slavery (as most people, north and south, were to some degree). However, two things need to be mentioned in conjunction with this anti-slavery stand of Lincoln’s.
First, his pro-union stance far outweighed any anti-slavery sentiment he may have held. He is famous for saying that if he could preserve the union while freeing the slaves, he would; if he could preserve the union without freeing any of the slaves, he would; if he could preserve the union while freeing some slaves and leaving others in slavery, he would. In short, any feelings of anti-slavery were, according to his own statements entirely subordinate to his desire to maintain the union. Also, preserving the union was in the interest of the North. The north did not want the south separated from the union, it only wanted it to conform to the north’s vision of the union.
Secondly, in what would be shocking to many of today’s Lincoln admirers, he hardly had beliefs that would coincide with 21st century racial equality. There are many quotes which space does not permit that would almost seem to have come from a 1950s Georgia Klansman that were in fact spoken by Old Abe himself. He did not see the Africans as equal to the whites. He did not believe the Africans and the whites could live together peacefully. Therefore, just like the radical abolitionist, he may have wanted to end slavery, but he had not real workable plan to do so.
At any rate, Lincoln’s pro-northern business, pro-union interests provided him with one large block of votes. His vocalized anti-slavery statements gave him the support of many of the abolitionists and other religious liberals. The fact that he was not outwardly radical on any of these things gave him some support from the many moderates of the north. He posed a strong candidacy indeed.
Here, however, is where the south made perhaps it first major political blunder.
The Democratic nominee for president was not a southerner, but was a midwestern moderate named Stephen Douglas. Southerners were not satisfied with this. They then broke free from the national Democratic Party, formed the Southern Democratic Party and nominated Henry Breckenridge from Kentucky for President.
The election then was interesting. Voters in the south split between Douglas and Breckenrigde. Notherners split between Lincoln and Douglas. When the dust settled, Lincoln won the electoral college, but did not have a popular majority. What is even more amazing is that in the states that would soon secede and form the confederacy, Lincoln received not even one vote. Not one single vote by any person in several states. Let that sink in for a minute. In all those states below the Mason Dixon line combined, Lincoln garnered something like one or two percent of the vote. Yet he would be president for the whole nation. Think about that. What if today a president was elected when an entire section of the country basically gave him/her no votes whatsoever. This was just too much. A president backed by those who sought to destroy the south, not receiving ANY votes in the south, yet elected as their president.
Here is where perhaps, the south made a second blunder. Very quickly after the election of Lincoln, southern states started seceding. Even Alexander Stephens, who would become the Confederate Vice President in time, and therefore was most certainly not against the southern cause, strongly encouraged waiting it out. Secession was legal (and still is today despite any statements to the contrary you may hear). But it may not have been wise – at least not yet. However, the states left the union – right or wrong, wise or ignorant.
As a result of their secession, The Republicans then waged war on the south – just as the south had feared they would. Understand that, kids. In the view of the South, they sought independence (like the colonies from the crown some 80 years previously), but the REPUBLICANS initiated and waged war against them. It was seen in the south as a REPUBLICAN war. A war whose purpose was the total annihilation of the south and its culture. Again, if this sounds like hyperbole, just study a bit of history from the time. Check out some first hand, primary source comments.
The quote at the beginning of this post was spoken by Confederate General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.
So, the birth and early growth of the Republican Party was not based on any idea of true reform. It was not based on any ideal of limited government, or low taxes, or pro-family or pro-small business, or individual rights, or personal liberty, or right to life, or any other high sounding, conservative, Christian ideal. It was based on preserving the union in the form desired by the moneyed elite of the northeast through the destruction of the southern culture and the bringing of it under the heavy hand of northern power brokers. THERE is your Republican Party.
You can have it!
Note how in this party the supposedly ‘consevative’ or ‘right wing’ business interests were hand in hand with the ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘left wing’ causes such as abolition with the end result being more centralized power. This is always the way it is. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ are really meaningless. Expansion of centralized power is always the goal of the big business/big government cabal. The War Between the States, and the aftermath of reconstruction effectively marked the end of truly limited constitutional government in this nation. It has been downhill ever since.
The directions of the two parties since then has in some ways taken many turns and in some ways remained basically the same. The Democratic Party has continued to try to portray itself as a populist ‘party of the people.’ This has effectively meant it has moved ever more the ‘left’ in order to appease this or that special interest group, or in the name of ‘fighting poverty’ or other such high sounding ideals. The Republican Party has tried to at one and the same time posit itself as ‘pro-business’ as well as ‘progressive.’ This has lead to a hodge-podge of policy from both parties. However, the one thing that is certain is that tracing the last 140 years, it has not seemed to matter much which party controlled the White House or either House of Congress. The direction of travel has remained the same. Big government has gotten bigger. Big business interests continue to be protected. Big government/big business together in both parties with some outward disguised differences in party.
For this reason, I can not consider myself a Republican. One hundred and forty seven years ago, the Republicans began running roughshod over the homes of my ancestors (none of whom owned slaves). They and their partners in the other party have continued to centralize more and more power in their hands thereby more and more limiting my freedom.
Depending on the situation in any given election cycle, I could possibly vote for a Republican if the differences seemed to be great enough. However, in general, as I see it, there really ain’t much difference in the two. I will likely vote third party or not vote at all. And no matter what, I will not call myself a Republican!
_________________________
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
The City of God
I just recently started reading St. Augustine's"The City of God." I have gotten through the first two books (out of twenty two) - which translates to about 80 pages out of over 800.
For those who do not know, the context of TCOG is that the city of Rome was attacked by the Goth's in 410 AD. Many of the leaders of the city were placing blame on the Christians for the calamities. They said that since the Christians were not worshiping the gods of Rome, the gods had abandoned the city, and the city was now falling. Augustine began writing TCOG during this time to refute this accusation.
The thing that has struck me the most so far is, believe it or not, how contemporary it is. You could change the language slightly, change the names of the philosophers and writers he refers to, and voila, he is talking about the condition of today's United States, and the position of our modern liberal leadership.
Time and space do not permit me to elaborate, but I wonder who else has noticed any parallels??
J
For those who do not know, the context of TCOG is that the city of Rome was attacked by the Goth's in 410 AD. Many of the leaders of the city were placing blame on the Christians for the calamities. They said that since the Christians were not worshiping the gods of Rome, the gods had abandoned the city, and the city was now falling. Augustine began writing TCOG during this time to refute this accusation.
The thing that has struck me the most so far is, believe it or not, how contemporary it is. You could change the language slightly, change the names of the philosophers and writers he refers to, and voila, he is talking about the condition of today's United States, and the position of our modern liberal leadership.
Time and space do not permit me to elaborate, but I wonder who else has noticed any parallels??
J
Monday, June 30, 2008
Interesting little blurb about the Census questionairre I found at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008233.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008233.asp
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Reading List
This post is a continuation of the previous post below. There, I talked about the lack of knowledge of the general population in the area of economics. I ended by stating that I would continue with a brief reading list. Before perusing this list, you may want to read the previous post to get an idea of where I am coming from.
I do have a few of caveats concerning this list: 1) This list is not to suggest that any and every thing said by each of these is absolutely without error – this is not a wholesale endorsement of any or every of these writers and their work 2) some of these writers are Christian of one stripe or the other, and some are not. Ultimately, I do believe that real truth is only to be found in God, its author. Therefore, real truth on earth can only be ascertained by those who faithfully believe in Him. However, this does not mean that unbelievers are not capable of getting glimpses of this truth or teaching it to others. An absolute atheist may be able to calculate the distance between the earth and sun, but have no comprehension of the maker of the earth and sun. 3) I have not myself read all of these. In fact, there are a great many that I have not. However, I am familiar enough with most of the authors to comment. I will try to comment on these issues where appropriate.
Henry Hazlitt
The first place that I send every person I can to get an overall, simple, easy to read explanation is to a book entitled Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. (I have absolutely no idea what his religious views, if any, were) This is a relatively short work made up of numerous, relatively short and easy to understand essays on a variety of topics including some of those listed above (minimum wage laws, etc.) His "one lesson" is essentially what I have written about in the previous post, but in his words it is stated thusly: "From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists of looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
He then goes on to do just that, tracing the consequences of various policies and ideas for all groups. I can not recommend this work highly enough. If you never read another work on economics in your life, please read this one.
Clarence Carson
Another writer who is not known to the major portion of the general populace, but who is worth seeking out is Dr. Clarence B. Carson. Dr. Carson was from small town rural Alabama, received an education from Auburn University and Vanderbilt University, taught at both high school and college level, and wrote numerous books and countless articles. His main area of study was history. However, in this he developed an interest and aptitude in economics. Dr. Carson’s most important contribution to this field was, in my opinion, his book The War on the Poor. This book was written in the late 1960s during the peak of President Johnson’s "Great Society" program. Carson demonstrated, both theoretically and with empirical evidence, that all these programs aimed supposedly at helping the poorer people actually causes them harm. (Again, this is Hazlitt’s ‘one lesson’ of economics.) Thus, the so called "war on poverty" of LBJ was actually a "war on the poor." This work is mostly unknown and overlooked. I think it should be essential reading in our classrooms today. Dr. Carson also wrote a book entitled Basic Economics. This is more an overall view of economic thought with the various economic theories explained. I do believe Dr. Carson was a man of faith, though I am uncertain his denominational affiliation.
Gary North
Dr. Gary North is a controversial figure for numerous reasons. I will very briefly mention them here, but without any personal bias. Dr. North is a very conservative Christian with ties to certain minority wings within the reformed Christian right. This alone, of course, makes him at the very least a little suspect to those anywhere to the left of Jerry Falwell. However, the biggest problem within the circles he has run in seems to be in-fighting. All points theological and otherwise are firmly marked out and anyone within those circles who steps outside the lines then becomes outcast, or makes the others outside their own lines out to be the outcast. North has probably been on both sides of the "I’m the real reformed Christian" arguments.
As an example, North had strong ties with Dr. R. J. Rushdoony - probably the most important man in the circles in which he runs. He even became Dr. Rushdoony’s son in law. However, North and Rushdoony eventually had a falling out from which they apparently still had not mended at the time of Rushdoony’s death a few years back.
Dr. North is also noted for his sensationalism which is sometimes a bit over the top. He was one of the louder voices forecasting the Y2K disaster. He even personally staked his own professional reputation on his being right about the pending doom stating essentially that if he was wrong about it then no one should ever listen to anything he had to say again. Many of his followers spent tons of money preparing for the disaster. Of course he turned out to be wrong. Of course he keeps on opining on a variety of topics and of course a large contingent of his followers were unswayed by his inaccuracy.
Although I have never met nor spoken to the man, I know several who have had direct contact with him. My understanding is that there can be a lack of Christian love, humility and charity in his personality.
All the above is simply expanding on my caveats that I started with. I know Dr. North is a Christian and I do not question the sincerity or orthodoxy of his faith for one minute. However, I would be very uncomfortable totally aligning myself with his name.
That said, Dr. North has done a tremendous amount of work in the area of Biblical economics (which seems to be his area of special expertise.) If we ignore him because of the above stated reasons we may be missing out on some thoughtful insight. Some of Dr. North’s books include his being publisher of a series of books called Biblical Blueprints. In addition to being the publisher, he was the author of several of the volumes. Pertinent titles in this series include Inherit the Earth: Biblical Principals in Economics; Honest Money:Biblical Principals of Money and Banking; In the Shadow of Plenty; Biblical Principals of Welfare and Poverty (Written by George Grant). In addition to this series, Dr. North has written An Introduction to Christian Economics and Coined Freedom: Gold in the Age of the Bureaucrats. Finally, Dr. North’s lifelong project has been to produce an economic commentary on every book of the Bible. This is a very ambitious project and will likely not be completed. However, he has produced several such commentaries. Dr. North also writes numerous newsletters and has various websites he either runs or contributes to.
I have read several of his works and find them to be solid in the area of economics and would recommend them. This is not a wholesale endorsement of everything he has ever said, nor even of the theories of economics laid out in these books. However as part of forming an overall understanding of economics from a Christian perspective, Dr. North is very valuable.
I would absolutely recommend Honest Money as being almost as indispensable as Hazlitt’s work.
David Chilton
David Chilton was a theological writer who produced one of the greatest comentaries on the book of Revelation ever written. He was also for a time closely associated with Dr. North. (I think they ended in a theological squabble.) While he was working with Dr. North, Chilton produced a book entitled Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators. This book was a biting, somewhat sarcastic response to a book published previously by Ronald Sider entitled Rich Christians in and Age of Hunger. Sider’s thesis was that it is a disgrace that there are Christians (mostly American) who are rich while the world is full of poverty. His solution, of course, was government programs. He attempted to use scripture to justify this position stating that God is always on the side of the poor and against the rich. Chilton demolishes this thesis biblically.
Because of his sometimes caustic wit, this book is often looked down upon as negative. However, if one can read through the biting humor, one can learn quite a bit about biblical economics here. Chilton’s book is not anti-poor, nor anti-charity. It is anti-forced governmental solutions to these problems. If you are somewhat sympathetic to his views, this will be one of the most entertaining books on economics you will ever read. If you are not sympathetic to his views, I would not recommend reading this until you have had a full cardiac exam.
Ludwig von Mises
Mises was, as far as I know, not a Christian. I am not even sure I understand exactly where he is coming from. Mises did not necessarily see some form of moral correctness or superiority of the free market, honest money system. He simply saw very clearly that the outcomes of this system were always superior to the outcomes of any form of planned or managed economy. On the one hand, therefore, he wrote from an empirical standpoint. We can study the theories behind the various economic systems and come to definite conclusions. We can then study these systems in practice and see these outcomes.
On the other hand, Mises was, correctly I believe, doubtful of the ability of the economist’s ability to empirically study a specific effect of a specific economic activity. That is because unlike with the physical sciences, economic factors can not be isolated in a laboratory type setting. We can not, for instance, hold all things constant while varying minimum wage, then measure the effects of the minimum wage. This is impossible. The economy is dynamic, not static. The whole economy is constantly changing. How can we therefore, amidst all this change, measure the effects of minimum wage? However, minimum wage can be shown very definitely in theory to have a negative impact. We can look at the overall economic policy of a nation and determine if it is sound or not theoretically. We can then look and see if our predicted effects are generally coming about in the economy.
The system of economics that Mises is associated with is called the Austrian School of Economics. This line of thought is not necessarily religious. However, the economic theories on paper are quite similar to what some see as the biblical system of economics (sound money, limited government intervention, etc) Because of this, Mises and his crowd were known to at least cross paths with Rushdoony, North, and their crowd.
Mises wrote tremendous volumes. I mentioned several of them previously. Human Action, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality; Socialism; The Theory of Money and Credit are among his most widely read works. Much can be learned about Mises and the Austrian School from the Ludwig von Mises Institute located in Auburn, Alabama. They also have a website. It may be worth researching.
Murray Rothbard
Rothbard was a student of Mises. He was not a Christian, though apparently he had a great deal of respect for the Christian tradition of the West. Of interest are his book America’s Great Depression and his magnum opus Man, Economy, and State. He wrote many others as well as countless articles and essays.
His America’s Great Depression absolutely demolishes the myth that the depression was caused by the free market and that the nation was rescued by government intervention. The actual truth is that the depression was caused by government intervention, made longer and deeper by further government intervention, then masked by yet further government intervention which continues to this day.
Other writers who may be of varying interests include Dr. George Grant, Thomas Sowell, Llewellyn Rockwell and others. Do some internet searches. Also, the standard historical read for economics students would be Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776).
Generally speaking then, I would recommend the following:
Start with Hazlitt to get a simple, easy to read, easy to understand introduction into general economic thought. Next read Carson’s Basic Economics to get a broader, overall view of the study of economics, followed by his The War on the Poor. From there, if you are still interested, read some of North, et al Biblical Blueprints series, at least the ones that are economic in nature. Particularly Honest Money is a must. From there, go where you may, including possibly some of the others listed above, or others I have not listed.
I do have a few of caveats concerning this list: 1) This list is not to suggest that any and every thing said by each of these is absolutely without error – this is not a wholesale endorsement of any or every of these writers and their work 2) some of these writers are Christian of one stripe or the other, and some are not. Ultimately, I do believe that real truth is only to be found in God, its author. Therefore, real truth on earth can only be ascertained by those who faithfully believe in Him. However, this does not mean that unbelievers are not capable of getting glimpses of this truth or teaching it to others. An absolute atheist may be able to calculate the distance between the earth and sun, but have no comprehension of the maker of the earth and sun. 3) I have not myself read all of these. In fact, there are a great many that I have not. However, I am familiar enough with most of the authors to comment. I will try to comment on these issues where appropriate.
Henry Hazlitt
The first place that I send every person I can to get an overall, simple, easy to read explanation is to a book entitled Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. (I have absolutely no idea what his religious views, if any, were) This is a relatively short work made up of numerous, relatively short and easy to understand essays on a variety of topics including some of those listed above (minimum wage laws, etc.) His "one lesson" is essentially what I have written about in the previous post, but in his words it is stated thusly: "From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists of looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
He then goes on to do just that, tracing the consequences of various policies and ideas for all groups. I can not recommend this work highly enough. If you never read another work on economics in your life, please read this one.
Clarence Carson
Another writer who is not known to the major portion of the general populace, but who is worth seeking out is Dr. Clarence B. Carson. Dr. Carson was from small town rural Alabama, received an education from Auburn University and Vanderbilt University, taught at both high school and college level, and wrote numerous books and countless articles. His main area of study was history. However, in this he developed an interest and aptitude in economics. Dr. Carson’s most important contribution to this field was, in my opinion, his book The War on the Poor. This book was written in the late 1960s during the peak of President Johnson’s "Great Society" program. Carson demonstrated, both theoretically and with empirical evidence, that all these programs aimed supposedly at helping the poorer people actually causes them harm. (Again, this is Hazlitt’s ‘one lesson’ of economics.) Thus, the so called "war on poverty" of LBJ was actually a "war on the poor." This work is mostly unknown and overlooked. I think it should be essential reading in our classrooms today. Dr. Carson also wrote a book entitled Basic Economics. This is more an overall view of economic thought with the various economic theories explained. I do believe Dr. Carson was a man of faith, though I am uncertain his denominational affiliation.
Gary North
Dr. Gary North is a controversial figure for numerous reasons. I will very briefly mention them here, but without any personal bias. Dr. North is a very conservative Christian with ties to certain minority wings within the reformed Christian right. This alone, of course, makes him at the very least a little suspect to those anywhere to the left of Jerry Falwell. However, the biggest problem within the circles he has run in seems to be in-fighting. All points theological and otherwise are firmly marked out and anyone within those circles who steps outside the lines then becomes outcast, or makes the others outside their own lines out to be the outcast. North has probably been on both sides of the "I’m the real reformed Christian" arguments.
As an example, North had strong ties with Dr. R. J. Rushdoony - probably the most important man in the circles in which he runs. He even became Dr. Rushdoony’s son in law. However, North and Rushdoony eventually had a falling out from which they apparently still had not mended at the time of Rushdoony’s death a few years back.
Dr. North is also noted for his sensationalism which is sometimes a bit over the top. He was one of the louder voices forecasting the Y2K disaster. He even personally staked his own professional reputation on his being right about the pending doom stating essentially that if he was wrong about it then no one should ever listen to anything he had to say again. Many of his followers spent tons of money preparing for the disaster. Of course he turned out to be wrong. Of course he keeps on opining on a variety of topics and of course a large contingent of his followers were unswayed by his inaccuracy.
Although I have never met nor spoken to the man, I know several who have had direct contact with him. My understanding is that there can be a lack of Christian love, humility and charity in his personality.
All the above is simply expanding on my caveats that I started with. I know Dr. North is a Christian and I do not question the sincerity or orthodoxy of his faith for one minute. However, I would be very uncomfortable totally aligning myself with his name.
That said, Dr. North has done a tremendous amount of work in the area of Biblical economics (which seems to be his area of special expertise.) If we ignore him because of the above stated reasons we may be missing out on some thoughtful insight. Some of Dr. North’s books include his being publisher of a series of books called Biblical Blueprints. In addition to being the publisher, he was the author of several of the volumes. Pertinent titles in this series include Inherit the Earth: Biblical Principals in Economics; Honest Money:Biblical Principals of Money and Banking; In the Shadow of Plenty; Biblical Principals of Welfare and Poverty (Written by George Grant). In addition to this series, Dr. North has written An Introduction to Christian Economics and Coined Freedom: Gold in the Age of the Bureaucrats. Finally, Dr. North’s lifelong project has been to produce an economic commentary on every book of the Bible. This is a very ambitious project and will likely not be completed. However, he has produced several such commentaries. Dr. North also writes numerous newsletters and has various websites he either runs or contributes to.
I have read several of his works and find them to be solid in the area of economics and would recommend them. This is not a wholesale endorsement of everything he has ever said, nor even of the theories of economics laid out in these books. However as part of forming an overall understanding of economics from a Christian perspective, Dr. North is very valuable.
I would absolutely recommend Honest Money as being almost as indispensable as Hazlitt’s work.
David Chilton
David Chilton was a theological writer who produced one of the greatest comentaries on the book of Revelation ever written. He was also for a time closely associated with Dr. North. (I think they ended in a theological squabble.) While he was working with Dr. North, Chilton produced a book entitled Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators. This book was a biting, somewhat sarcastic response to a book published previously by Ronald Sider entitled Rich Christians in and Age of Hunger. Sider’s thesis was that it is a disgrace that there are Christians (mostly American) who are rich while the world is full of poverty. His solution, of course, was government programs. He attempted to use scripture to justify this position stating that God is always on the side of the poor and against the rich. Chilton demolishes this thesis biblically.
Because of his sometimes caustic wit, this book is often looked down upon as negative. However, if one can read through the biting humor, one can learn quite a bit about biblical economics here. Chilton’s book is not anti-poor, nor anti-charity. It is anti-forced governmental solutions to these problems. If you are somewhat sympathetic to his views, this will be one of the most entertaining books on economics you will ever read. If you are not sympathetic to his views, I would not recommend reading this until you have had a full cardiac exam.
Ludwig von Mises
Mises was, as far as I know, not a Christian. I am not even sure I understand exactly where he is coming from. Mises did not necessarily see some form of moral correctness or superiority of the free market, honest money system. He simply saw very clearly that the outcomes of this system were always superior to the outcomes of any form of planned or managed economy. On the one hand, therefore, he wrote from an empirical standpoint. We can study the theories behind the various economic systems and come to definite conclusions. We can then study these systems in practice and see these outcomes.
On the other hand, Mises was, correctly I believe, doubtful of the ability of the economist’s ability to empirically study a specific effect of a specific economic activity. That is because unlike with the physical sciences, economic factors can not be isolated in a laboratory type setting. We can not, for instance, hold all things constant while varying minimum wage, then measure the effects of the minimum wage. This is impossible. The economy is dynamic, not static. The whole economy is constantly changing. How can we therefore, amidst all this change, measure the effects of minimum wage? However, minimum wage can be shown very definitely in theory to have a negative impact. We can look at the overall economic policy of a nation and determine if it is sound or not theoretically. We can then look and see if our predicted effects are generally coming about in the economy.
The system of economics that Mises is associated with is called the Austrian School of Economics. This line of thought is not necessarily religious. However, the economic theories on paper are quite similar to what some see as the biblical system of economics (sound money, limited government intervention, etc) Because of this, Mises and his crowd were known to at least cross paths with Rushdoony, North, and their crowd.
Mises wrote tremendous volumes. I mentioned several of them previously. Human Action, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality; Socialism; The Theory of Money and Credit are among his most widely read works. Much can be learned about Mises and the Austrian School from the Ludwig von Mises Institute located in Auburn, Alabama. They also have a website. It may be worth researching.
Murray Rothbard
Rothbard was a student of Mises. He was not a Christian, though apparently he had a great deal of respect for the Christian tradition of the West. Of interest are his book America’s Great Depression and his magnum opus Man, Economy, and State. He wrote many others as well as countless articles and essays.
His America’s Great Depression absolutely demolishes the myth that the depression was caused by the free market and that the nation was rescued by government intervention. The actual truth is that the depression was caused by government intervention, made longer and deeper by further government intervention, then masked by yet further government intervention which continues to this day.
Other writers who may be of varying interests include Dr. George Grant, Thomas Sowell, Llewellyn Rockwell and others. Do some internet searches. Also, the standard historical read for economics students would be Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776).
Generally speaking then, I would recommend the following:
Start with Hazlitt to get a simple, easy to read, easy to understand introduction into general economic thought. Next read Carson’s Basic Economics to get a broader, overall view of the study of economics, followed by his The War on the Poor. From there, if you are still interested, read some of North, et al Biblical Blueprints series, at least the ones that are economic in nature. Particularly Honest Money is a must. From there, go where you may, including possibly some of the others listed above, or others I have not listed.
The Dismal State of Economic Knowledge
I guess about half of what I have posted on here is about how I do not have time to post!!! Unfortunately, I don’t. I have attempted start regular posts on a variety of topics (music, etc.) but have been unable to do anything regular at all. So, I’ll just give up any pretense at regular posting, and just come and go as I can!
The one thing that the nation needs is a religious revival. Every area of life is corrupted by sin, and can only be redeemed by true religion. It has happened before, both on this continent and abroad. It can happen again. If it does, we can expect to see every area of life show signs of redemption. If it doesn’t….well….I’m afraid to speculate.
Religion, faith, God, etc. encompass every single area of life. One area of life that definitely needs redeeming right now is education. Specifically, I am thinking of the level of knowledge and understanding by the general public of economic issues.
In a way, economics is like religion. That is because, like religion, it is universal. That is, economics covers every area of life as well. Every thing you do or do not do, every decision you make, all things in all areas of your life are really ‘economic.’ And since they are done under the One True and Living God who created and governs all things, they are all ‘religious.’ It might seem that if religion is all encompassing, and economics is all encompassing, then either 1) religion and economics are the same thing or 2) religion and economics are competing things. However, this is not necessarily so. To perhaps misuse the amended rules in Orwell’s Animal Farm that stated that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others, we can argue that while religion and economics are both universal, religion is more universal than economics. Economics is ‘universal’ in that every thing you do is economic or has economic ramifications. However, it does not get to the heart of the meaning and purpose in life – not to mention life’s origins and conclusions. Religion is more broadly universal. But, in relation to our day to day life, what we see, do, act upon, etc. economics can and should be considered universal.
The idea that economics, properly viewed, is in this sense universal, was apparently the view of Ludwig von Mises, one of the leading economists of the twentieth century. While he wrote voluminously on the topic, with such book titles as The Theory of Money and Credit, Socialism, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, etc., his most famous work is his overall thesis on economics entitled Human Action. What is economics? Broadly speaking, the study of economics can be defined as the study of human action. Broadly speaking, then, using the term "the economy" is simply a way of speaking about the totality of all human activity. When we say that America’s economy is strong, what we are saying is that by and large, the people’s use of their time and talents is being utilized in a way that is generally beneficial to all. (there are always exceptions, of course) When we say that America’s economy is weak or struggling, we are really saying that people’s use of their time and talents is not being efficiently harnessed for the good of all. This may be for any number of reasons. However, I do believe that if our citizens had a better overall understanding of economics, then by necessity our economy would tend to be strong, rather than struggling.
I know when you think of the word ‘economics’ the first word that pops into your head is ‘money.’ Even Mises of Human Action fame, also wrote, as we said, The Theory of Money and Credit. But, ask yourself, what is money? The answer is that money is really only a medium of exchange. Money facilitates ‘human action.’ It is nothing more, and nothing less. Money is one of the means utilized by humans to allow themselves the most productive use of their time and talents, by dividing their time and talents into usable portions (e.g. dollars) to be traded to others for useful portions of their time and talents.
While every single thing we do is economic, the level of understanding of economics in twenty-first century America is disgraceful. I can not think of a topic that more people know less about than economics, while at the same time people think they know a lot about it. Yet, (other than religion) it is the most widely relevant subject there is.
It is at least partly because of this abysmal understanding of economics that our nation’s ‘economy’ is going in the tank. People do not understand the basic principle of what money is, where it comes from, and how it operates. They do not understand that as far as humans can control such outcomes (which is only so far), as a general rule those who have the most money are the ones who have the most talent and energy, or have used their level of talent and energy in the most useful and productive ways.
They also do not understand (and this is vitally important) that activity by the government, aimed at supposedly improving the ‘economy’, have never and can never actually work. Two caveats are due here. First, the economic interests and security of a people is aided by government when government sticks to what it is suppose to do. Therefore, the preceding comment is not to be taken as a call to anarchy. Property and liberty are at great jeopardy when there is no government. In fact, protecting life, liberty, and property (or even more broadly, the pursuit of happiness) is in fact the very purpose of government. When government does this, and only this, a nation can prosper. It is when government oversteps its boundary lines and tries to do all sorts of things above and beyond this, even including ‘spurring the economy,’ that real actual harm is done to the economic interests of the nation.
The second caveat is that often times what government does ‘for’ the economy does have an immediately obvious and observable positive impact. However, this is usually discriminatory (it ‘benefits’ one group of people at the expense of others), and is always temporary. The end result is always that more harm is done to the whole of society than could ever be justified by the temporary gain by a few. In the long run too, it is usually the early ‘beneficiaries’ who ultimately are harmed the most. And of course, this is usually the poorer among us.
To consider some examples of the above think of government action such as welfare payments, minimum wage laws, rent controls, price controls, public works projects, work week regulations, tariffs to protect industry, pro union legislation, windfall profits tax, and on and on. These are all economic intrusions by the government, are all aimed either at helping the lower classes or conversely ‘soaking’ the rich. They all can have immediate, obvious benefits to some group (I make $5 an hour and the government magically makes $7 an hour the legal ‘minimum’ wage – I get a $2 an hour, or $4160 per year raise – great, right???). However, all of these intrusions in the end are impossible to accomplish, hurt the overall economic system of the nation, and in the end, hurt the very people they intended to help. (Consider the worker who got laid off because he was only worth $5 an hour to his company and not $7)
What inevitably happens though, and this is why I believe our economy is possibly on the brink of disaster, is that our leaders pass such laws as these and more; they may or may not have a temporary, limited positive impact; then the longer term, wider impact is negative – economic indicators grow worse. The response of our leaders is always the same. It is not to repeal the damaging laws. Instead it is to pass yet more of the same. This does two things. First, it may (or may not) ‘spur’ the economy, or some portion thereof temporarily. Secondly, though, it makes the situation even more precarious. Economic indicators eventually take a down turn again, and the government responds with more of the same.
The long term impact of this is that of visibly perceived wealth and greatness of a nation, propped up on a horribly shoddy foundation. To use religiously charged language, it is a house built upon the sand. You know what happens to such houses? Eventually they fall, and "great is that fall."
In essence our economy is stacked up on phony money generated by phony government action. To put it in individual terms that are easy to understand, consider that you or I could live an apparently wonderful prosperous life if we had several credit cards with no or very high limits. We could spend and spend. We could also finance fancy cars and large homes, high class vacations, etc. To all the world we look rich. But one day, citi and Capital One will come calling, as will the auto financiers and the mortgage company. If we live like that there are only three possible outcomes: 1) we fall and fall hard 2) we repent of our economic sin, tighten our belt, sell off what we can and pay down our debts and begin living responsibly if it is not too late or 3) we get lucky and die before the fall, leaving it to our children and grandchildren to pick up the pieces.
Our politicians and their in-house economists are banking on number three. One of the leading economists of the last century even admitted it. When asked about the long term effects of his economic plans, John Maynard Keynes stated, "In the long run, we are all dead." That is the type of people who are planning and running our economy.
In summary, I believe our nation needs first and foremost a religious revival. Secondly, and on the heels of this revival, we need a revival of knowledge and understanding – especially in the universal area of human action known as economics. Until this happens, we will continue to get more of the same and this skyscraper built on sand will eventually fall.
To perhaps prime the pump a bit, the following post will contain a few suggested readings.
The one thing that the nation needs is a religious revival. Every area of life is corrupted by sin, and can only be redeemed by true religion. It has happened before, both on this continent and abroad. It can happen again. If it does, we can expect to see every area of life show signs of redemption. If it doesn’t….well….I’m afraid to speculate.
Religion, faith, God, etc. encompass every single area of life. One area of life that definitely needs redeeming right now is education. Specifically, I am thinking of the level of knowledge and understanding by the general public of economic issues.
In a way, economics is like religion. That is because, like religion, it is universal. That is, economics covers every area of life as well. Every thing you do or do not do, every decision you make, all things in all areas of your life are really ‘economic.’ And since they are done under the One True and Living God who created and governs all things, they are all ‘religious.’ It might seem that if religion is all encompassing, and economics is all encompassing, then either 1) religion and economics are the same thing or 2) religion and economics are competing things. However, this is not necessarily so. To perhaps misuse the amended rules in Orwell’s Animal Farm that stated that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others, we can argue that while religion and economics are both universal, religion is more universal than economics. Economics is ‘universal’ in that every thing you do is economic or has economic ramifications. However, it does not get to the heart of the meaning and purpose in life – not to mention life’s origins and conclusions. Religion is more broadly universal. But, in relation to our day to day life, what we see, do, act upon, etc. economics can and should be considered universal.
The idea that economics, properly viewed, is in this sense universal, was apparently the view of Ludwig von Mises, one of the leading economists of the twentieth century. While he wrote voluminously on the topic, with such book titles as The Theory of Money and Credit, Socialism, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, etc., his most famous work is his overall thesis on economics entitled Human Action. What is economics? Broadly speaking, the study of economics can be defined as the study of human action. Broadly speaking, then, using the term "the economy" is simply a way of speaking about the totality of all human activity. When we say that America’s economy is strong, what we are saying is that by and large, the people’s use of their time and talents is being utilized in a way that is generally beneficial to all. (there are always exceptions, of course) When we say that America’s economy is weak or struggling, we are really saying that people’s use of their time and talents is not being efficiently harnessed for the good of all. This may be for any number of reasons. However, I do believe that if our citizens had a better overall understanding of economics, then by necessity our economy would tend to be strong, rather than struggling.
I know when you think of the word ‘economics’ the first word that pops into your head is ‘money.’ Even Mises of Human Action fame, also wrote, as we said, The Theory of Money and Credit. But, ask yourself, what is money? The answer is that money is really only a medium of exchange. Money facilitates ‘human action.’ It is nothing more, and nothing less. Money is one of the means utilized by humans to allow themselves the most productive use of their time and talents, by dividing their time and talents into usable portions (e.g. dollars) to be traded to others for useful portions of their time and talents.
While every single thing we do is economic, the level of understanding of economics in twenty-first century America is disgraceful. I can not think of a topic that more people know less about than economics, while at the same time people think they know a lot about it. Yet, (other than religion) it is the most widely relevant subject there is.
It is at least partly because of this abysmal understanding of economics that our nation’s ‘economy’ is going in the tank. People do not understand the basic principle of what money is, where it comes from, and how it operates. They do not understand that as far as humans can control such outcomes (which is only so far), as a general rule those who have the most money are the ones who have the most talent and energy, or have used their level of talent and energy in the most useful and productive ways.
They also do not understand (and this is vitally important) that activity by the government, aimed at supposedly improving the ‘economy’, have never and can never actually work. Two caveats are due here. First, the economic interests and security of a people is aided by government when government sticks to what it is suppose to do. Therefore, the preceding comment is not to be taken as a call to anarchy. Property and liberty are at great jeopardy when there is no government. In fact, protecting life, liberty, and property (or even more broadly, the pursuit of happiness) is in fact the very purpose of government. When government does this, and only this, a nation can prosper. It is when government oversteps its boundary lines and tries to do all sorts of things above and beyond this, even including ‘spurring the economy,’ that real actual harm is done to the economic interests of the nation.
The second caveat is that often times what government does ‘for’ the economy does have an immediately obvious and observable positive impact. However, this is usually discriminatory (it ‘benefits’ one group of people at the expense of others), and is always temporary. The end result is always that more harm is done to the whole of society than could ever be justified by the temporary gain by a few. In the long run too, it is usually the early ‘beneficiaries’ who ultimately are harmed the most. And of course, this is usually the poorer among us.
To consider some examples of the above think of government action such as welfare payments, minimum wage laws, rent controls, price controls, public works projects, work week regulations, tariffs to protect industry, pro union legislation, windfall profits tax, and on and on. These are all economic intrusions by the government, are all aimed either at helping the lower classes or conversely ‘soaking’ the rich. They all can have immediate, obvious benefits to some group (I make $5 an hour and the government magically makes $7 an hour the legal ‘minimum’ wage – I get a $2 an hour, or $4160 per year raise – great, right???). However, all of these intrusions in the end are impossible to accomplish, hurt the overall economic system of the nation, and in the end, hurt the very people they intended to help. (Consider the worker who got laid off because he was only worth $5 an hour to his company and not $7)
What inevitably happens though, and this is why I believe our economy is possibly on the brink of disaster, is that our leaders pass such laws as these and more; they may or may not have a temporary, limited positive impact; then the longer term, wider impact is negative – economic indicators grow worse. The response of our leaders is always the same. It is not to repeal the damaging laws. Instead it is to pass yet more of the same. This does two things. First, it may (or may not) ‘spur’ the economy, or some portion thereof temporarily. Secondly, though, it makes the situation even more precarious. Economic indicators eventually take a down turn again, and the government responds with more of the same.
The long term impact of this is that of visibly perceived wealth and greatness of a nation, propped up on a horribly shoddy foundation. To use religiously charged language, it is a house built upon the sand. You know what happens to such houses? Eventually they fall, and "great is that fall."
In essence our economy is stacked up on phony money generated by phony government action. To put it in individual terms that are easy to understand, consider that you or I could live an apparently wonderful prosperous life if we had several credit cards with no or very high limits. We could spend and spend. We could also finance fancy cars and large homes, high class vacations, etc. To all the world we look rich. But one day, citi and Capital One will come calling, as will the auto financiers and the mortgage company. If we live like that there are only three possible outcomes: 1) we fall and fall hard 2) we repent of our economic sin, tighten our belt, sell off what we can and pay down our debts and begin living responsibly if it is not too late or 3) we get lucky and die before the fall, leaving it to our children and grandchildren to pick up the pieces.
Our politicians and their in-house economists are banking on number three. One of the leading economists of the last century even admitted it. When asked about the long term effects of his economic plans, John Maynard Keynes stated, "In the long run, we are all dead." That is the type of people who are planning and running our economy.
In summary, I believe our nation needs first and foremost a religious revival. Secondly, and on the heels of this revival, we need a revival of knowledge and understanding – especially in the universal area of human action known as economics. Until this happens, we will continue to get more of the same and this skyscraper built on sand will eventually fall.
To perhaps prime the pump a bit, the following post will contain a few suggested readings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
