Sleepless in Midland

Which is better for a country's economy, autocracy or democracy? -- conflicting studies

A few months ago we noted a study which concluded that democracy may not be that important to prosperity. See Poli Sci profs say democracy isn't necessary for prosperity previously at this blog.

The science isn't settled, apparently. For now we see Strongman leaders make for weak economies, study shows. Excerpt:

Autocrats whose countries experienced larger than average economic growth were found only as frequently as you would predict based on chance alone.

In contrast, autocrats overseeing poor economic growth were found significantly more frequently than chance would predict.

There was no evidence to suggest dictators had a positive influence over growth trajectories in the five or ten years after taking power. ...

The same analysis, carried out on dictators overseeing poor economies, to see if they had merely found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, found instead that economic growth dropped significantly after the entry into power of an economically ‘bad’ autocrat.

In short, dictators were shown to have little influence in driving economies up, but often more influence in driving them down.

Confirmation bias has a strong influence on my own analytical abilities, so I'm going with the freedom-is-better theme.

------
3:36 PM 10/7/2019

Quote of the week -- from Nicole Ault about Austrian economics

Colleges Go to Court Over a Donor’s Intent, by Nicole Ault, was about a dispute over whether funds were being applied to “dedicated and articulate disciple of the free and open market economy (the Ludwig von Mises Austrian School of Economics)” as the donor wished.

And the quote below pertained to a mind-set that leads to socialism. To wit:

I majored in economics at Hillsdale, and “Austrian I” was one of the most absorbing and inspiring classes I took. It taught me to appreciate the unpredictability of human behavior and fallibility of markets. It also showed me how mainstream economic thought feeds the socialist temptation. When people conceive of economic knowledge as purely factual and objective, Hayek pointed out, they may also assume they can engineer society.

As socialism grows chic—particularly among college students—the humility supplied by the Austrian view is critical.

(Bold added.)

The socialist movement in the U.S. today is not a positive development. If that is a result of our current education system then reform certainly is in order.

Meanwhile, the University of Missouri, the school which the donor wanted to add an articulate disciple of free and open market economy, appears not to have complied with the donor's wishes.

------
1:41 PM 9/28/2019

A beer drinker offers a guide to socialist countries

There was a wonderful, educating, and entertaining interview with Robert Lawson on C-Span recently about a new book of which he is a co-author. The name of the book is Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World.

Watch the interview here. It's about their tour, and he tells tells some enlightening anecdotes. For example, he  and his companion spent some time in Venezuela, and the country is as bad off as we hear. He told how he met some Venezuelans at the Colombian border who had spent three days crossing Venezuela so they could go grocery shopping in Colombia. A trip to the grocery store took three days? Dang. Sounds like the old Soviet Union.

Anyway, he authored an article published a month ago at Americanthinker.com titled Socialism, for Lack of a Better Word, Sucks. Excerpt:

Our first stop was Sweden, which Bernie Sanders and others extol as an ideal example of socialism. I’ve got news for Bernie and his crew -- Sweden is no more socialist than the United States. Ben and I have been there, and the beer is good and cold, produced by privately owned companies, imported from all over the world, and sold at privately owned bars at unregulated prices. Those prices are high, because of Sweden’s notoriously high taxes, which are about 50% higher than in the U.S., but that’s not socialism.

So basically, Sweden has a free market economy with a welfare state. Maybe it works satisfactorily for those who live there. But it's unlikely to work well in the fractured United States.

------
2:37 PM 8/21/2019

Slavery in 2019

Byron York tells us about the NYT's latest effort to sway voters in the next election in New goal for New York Times: 'Reframe' American history, and target Trump, too. The reframing puts slavery front and center and will attempt to make "race the central theme of Times coverage for the remaining two years of President Trump's term in office."

It's all partisan politics, but those of in flyover country might wish that they could tackle the real problem of modern day slavery with the same fervor they attack Trump. The State Department periodically publishes a report on slavery, and you can download the most recent one at https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-Trafficking-in-Persons-Report.pdf. Or see the overview at 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report.

A screen shot about the Western Hemisphere should appear on the right. Note that Cuba and Venezuela are the only two countries in this hemisphere that are Tier 3 countries. (Tier 3 is the worst in terms of slavery.)

We last talked about this in 2012 in a blog post titled Slave states - present day. Looks like Cuba was in Tier 3 then, too. But Venezuela wasn't. Hugo Chavez and his successor must have thought Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" was a how-to manual.

------
2:57 PM 8/19/2019

When NYT glorified Soviet diversity vs American Apollo mission they forgot about the Brezhnev Doctrine

The tweet reproduced on the right has circulated the blogosphere in the past few days.

The woke New York Times is glorifying Soviet diversity as a win over the U.S. to take a shot at those of us who might want to celebrate the anniversary of the moon landing. Amazingly it looks so much like what one might expect from Pravda.

A better comparison might have been to address the brutality of the Brezhnev Doctrine during that same time period. Soviet dissenters were declared mentally ill and subject to all sorts of punishments described as cures.

But foremost, let's recall the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 because their citizens were trying to sample freedoms that the Soviet system couldn't allow.

Wikipedia sums up the Brezhnev Doctrine this way:

The vague, broad nature of the Brezhnev Doctrine allowed application to any international situation the USSR saw fit. This is clearly evident not only through the Prague Spring in 1968, and the indirect pressure on Poland from 1980–81, but also in the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan starting in the 1970s. Any instance which caused the USSR to question whether or not a country was becoming a risk to international socialism, the use of military intervention was, in Soviet eyes, not only justified, but necessary.

Oh, but the diversity! In the eyes of the New York Times, freedom must take a back seat to diversity. But there's a bumper sticker idea for Putin: "Russia -- diversity is our strength. Don't like it? Turn yourself in."

------
4:14 PM 7/19/2019

Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism

For those of us who weren't paying enough attention before, Bernie Sanders put the concept of socialism in the U.S. right up near the top of things to worry about.

There are plenty of reasons to avoid socialism. But let's give Bernie the opportunity to explain what exactly this thing called "Democratic Socialism" is. He's quoted in Bernie Sanders Defends Democratic Socialism at Fox News Town Hall:

“Democratic socialism to me is creating a government and an economy and a society that works for all rather than the top 1 percent,” he said.

The website Democratic Socialists of America expands that vague definition:

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

In other words, the government would take over large industry, and small industry would be run as cooperatives, presumably by majority vote. As for why this hasn't worked anywhere else, we get the standard answer that it hasn't yet been done right.

As Thomas Sowell says, "The great promise of socialism is something for nothing."

But if that false the promise is actually fulfilled, it happened with force. And from there it is just a tiny step to full blown tyranny.

------
3:08 PM 5/15/2019

Joke of the week - Bernie walks into a bar

Bernie Sanders walks into a bar and yells... “Free drinks for everyone!” looks around and says “Who’s buying?”

(thanks SM)

------

3:41 PM 5/4/2019

History books should be full of failed socialist experiments

Bernie Sanders, et al., have branded themselves as socialist. And they want to brand the rest of us too, whether we like it or not.

It's not hard to find examples of socialists systems currently in place around the world that are failures. But if we can't learn from them, then we can look to our own history. Plymouth Colony, founded in 1620, could have been the first socialist test by European settlers. The socialist system set up by William Bradford lasted about 2 1/2 years, but the people became lazy and unproductive. Then reality set in, and "the leaders of the colony decided to abandon their socialist mandate and create a system which honored private property." Source: Occupy Plymouth Colony: How A Failed Commune Led To Thanksgiving.

Another failed socialist experiment was conducted by Robert Owen two centuries later in New Harmony, Indiana. After a couple of years, it too was a failure. See Britannica.com, New Harmony:

About 1,000 settlers responded to Owen’s public appeal, but most were misfits who ate his rations, argued over government, and were unable to perform the menial tasks vital to such a community. Farms and workshops lay idle while virtual anarchy reigned.

People in the U.S. today are deeply divided politically, and a reconciliation doesn't look likely any time soon. By one estimate, 45.3 percent of households in the U.S. don't pay taxes. It's easy to assume that those people would favor socialism since they wouldn't have to pay for it. Might that exacerbate the divisiveness we're experiencing? And might people on either side of the tax equation become the modern day "misfits" who spoiled Robert Owen's socialist dream?

The failures of Cuba and Venezuela are right here in front of us. But it's too bad our schools are not educating students about all the socialist failures that happened right here in the U.S.A.

------

3:08 PM 4/22/2019

Elizabeth Warren -- socialist without admitting it

Liz Warren tries to distance herself from the far left wing of the Democrat party by claiming that she's not a Democratic Socialist. To wit: Elizabeth Warren: 'I am not a' Democratic Socialist. And adds this about her own viewpoint:

"Markets have to have rules. They have to have a cop on the beat," she said, adding that "markets without rules are theft."

So is the "cop on the beat" in the market a euphemism for a socialist central planning committee? Seems so.

Richard A. Epstein explained it last year in Elizabeth Warren’s Surreptitious Socialism:

Like many proposals for radical reform, her Accountable Capitalism Act would destroy the institution she says she wants to save. The bill’s central provision tells the whole story: all corporations whose annual revenues exceed $1 billion dollars would be required to receive a federal corporate charter to remain in business. Those charters will come with conditions attached, to force corporations to pay due attention not just to their shareholders, but to their employees, suppliers, and their local communities.

Warren believes the federal government can attach whatever conditions it wants to the charters it issues, and she further claims that it should act to reverse the purportedly dangerous trend of top corporate officials making cash distributions to their shareholders instead of plowing those proceeds back into their own businesses. Her intellectual nemesis, no surprise, is Milton Friedman, who in a seminal 1970 article argued that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.”

The most obvious problem with Warren’s proposal is that it would likely lead to the largest flight of capital from the United States in history. Foreign investors will see little reason to put their wealth at the mercy of some crusading federal board that can override a company’s board of directors. Current covered American corporations would have powerful incentives to dump assets or relocate overseas. Make no mistake about it, her proposal calls for the outright confiscation of wealth through the nationalization of corporate boards that would be forever beholden to political figures. Surreptitious socialism turns out to be her way of saving capitalism. And for the worst of all reasons.

"[H]er proposal calls for the outright confiscation of wealth through the nationalization of corporate boards that would be forever beholden to political figures." Government control of industry -- isn't that socialism?

------

1:52 PM 3/16/2019

Poli Sci profs say democracy isn't necessary for prosperity

For a long time Americans have been proud of the accomplishments and prosperity of the United States, and we were taught that we owed that to the democratic form of government. Now two political scientists tell us that democracy may not be that important to prosperity.

See Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk in When Democracy Is No Longer the Only Path to Prosperity. Here's a snapshot:

Since the 1890s, countries like the U.S., Great Britain and a small band of other democracies have dominated the global economy. As recently as 1995, 96% of all people who lived in a country with a per capita income over $20,000 (in today’s terms) were citizens of a liberal democracy. With the exception of a few oligarchs perched atop stagnant and repressive societies, only democrats got to enjoy real affluence.

Today’s reality is very different. Our analysis of International Monetary Fund projections shows that sometime in the next five years, the total GDP of countries rated “not free” by Freedom House will surpass that of Western democracies. The combined economies of democratic countries like the U.S., Germany, France and Japan will be smaller than those of autocracies like China, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Rather disappointing. But perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that given a choice, people would rather be rich under a dictator than poor under democracy. The ideal would seem to be rich and free.

However, in many autocratic countries the prosperity flourished in the time prior to the shift to autocracy. Foa and Mounk added this to the mix:

a growing number of countries have learned to combine autocratic rule with market-friendly institutions, and they have continued growing economically well beyond the point at which democratic transitions used to occur.

Should those autocracies continue prospering at the current pace let's hope Americans don't decide that maybe a dictator is a better basis for government than democracy. In that regard, the current push for socialism isn't an especially good sign.

------

3:07 PM 3/5/2019

Socialist Democrats claim Sweden is the model not South America -- unaware Sweden has been moving away from socialism for past 20 years

According to Jesús Fernández-Villaverde and Lee E. Ohanian in How Sweden Overcame Socialism, Sweden's roughly 20 year experiment in socialism began to give way to market based system in the early 90s after incomes dropped, unemployment rose, and government debt grew along with transfer payments.

The changes have helped Sweden reach the 15th spot in Heritage Foundations economic freedom Country Rankings. The United States is 18th.

The South American countries that socialism in the U.S. would more likely resemble all rank pretty low on the list.

We should all hope that the people who want to lead us down this path will recognize the problems with socialism and not send us into a long miserable ultimately failed experiment before they can acknowledge what most of us already know.

------

3:28 PM 1/11/2019

Mexican president decides to improve economy -- What took him so long?

Some years ago a friend who was sympathetic to illegal immigration remarked sarcastically that Americans who opposed illegal immigration would get their comeuppance when Mexico's economy lured American citizens there to get work. My response was that a better economy in Mexico was in everyone's best interest.

It might be hard to get a good economy in a socialist environment that's infused with criminal narco-gangs. But it's worth a try, and it's long overdue.

And what do you know? Obrador is actually trying to make that happen, at least in the Northern part of Mexico. From Reuters: Mexican president decrees tax cuts for U.S. border region:

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico’s new leftist President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Monday decreed tax cuts for northern states that he says will help power economic growth and deter migration to the United States.

An executive order in the government’s official gazette granted lower rates for both value-added and income taxes in more than 40 municipalities bordering the United States, an area that has become a flashpoint over U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies to deter immigrants, including building a wall.

Lopez Obrador’s tax cuts could reduce government tax income during 2019, when he will implement a budget that seeks to use spending cuts to help fund new social welfare and infrastructure projects.

At an event in Monterrey in the northern state of Nuevo Leon on Saturday, Lopez Obrador said the minimum wage in the northern strip of municipalities would rise to 177 pesos ($9.00), nearly double the national level, starting Jan. 1, and that fuel prices would be set on a par with U.S. prices.

“This is a very important project to boost investment and job creation,” Lopez Obrador told business leaders.

The decree seeks to give an edge to northern Mexican businesses, which compete with U.S.-based companies across the border.

It's in everyone's best interest that the Mexican economy could improve to the point that its citizens don't believe that have to escape the regime in order to prosper.

See also Jason Hopkins' article Mexican president fighting illegal immigration to US by cutting taxes, improving economy of own country. Alternate link: Mexican President Fighting Illegal Immigration To US By Lowering Taxes.

------

3:01 PM 1/1/2019

Medicare hospital insurance destined for default

Socialism is great for those on the receiving side of the equation -- not so great for those on the paying side. And that's the problem. Eventually the people paying will wise up and shut down.

Democrats running for office have figured out that the way to get votes is to promise free stuff. And the promise that is growing in popularity is Medicare-for-all. Those making that promise have yet to explain how it will be paid for.

And just in time for a spot in the debate is the report titled 2018 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL HOSPITAL INSURANCE AND FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS. It's too long for most of us to want to wade through. So here's a short cut: 5 Key Takeaways From the 2018 Medicare Trustees' Report. There we learn that "... the recently released 2018 trustees report found that the HI trust fund is now expected to be depleted in 2026 -- three years earlier than previously expected. This is just eight years away." ("HI" stands for the hospital insurance part of Medicare part A.)

The main reason that socialism doesn't work for long is because someone has to pay for it. One of the early predictions about the U.S. governing experiment was that it would last only until the voters realized that they could raid the treasury. Now it seems as though politicians realize that telling voters they can get a slice of the treasury will get the politicians votes.

------

1:58 PM 12/19/2018

Fuel rioters in France are opposed to the idea that drivers should finance a battle against global warming

France isn't full blown socialist but is a hybrid mix of socialism and capitalism. The CIA World Factbook describes it this way, "France's leaders remain committed to a capitalism in which they maintain social equity by means of laws, tax policies, and social spending that mitigate economic inequality."

A good example of that is the high tax assessed against diesel and gasoline, "which the government says are to fund eco-friendly projects and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." So the government wants drivers to fund a battle against global warming.

If residents in quasi socialist France are rebelling against an expensive program based on dubious evidence of human caused global warming, imagine how Americans would react to a similar situation.

With so many Americans now claiming to favor a socialism they can't even define, this hybrid mix would probably be the result if they get their way.

The problem with socialism is that someone has to pay for it either voluntarily or by force. Rebellious Americans might be inclined to react as the French are doing to attempts to tax away their hard earned money to fund socialist experiments.

------

2:21 PM 11/24/2018

Incoming Democrats are big on the break-the-bank Medicare for all scheme

So far, no one with mathematical smarts has come up with a way that the "Medicare for all" scheme could actually work without bankrupting the U.S. government. But that hasn't stopped Democrats. In fact, Paulina Firozi tells us this The Health 202: Progressive Democrats ready to push 'Medicare for all' with new House leadership:

During the 2018 campaign, about two-thirds of the incoming House Democratic class supported a big change to the U.S. health care system in the form of a "Medicare-for-all" program; a Medicare buy-in option for all; or an expansion of Social Security, according to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Specifically looking at Medicare-for-all, the PCCC says 26 out of 60 incoming Democrats from races that have been called so far supported such a policy. That means they back a system in which all health-care bills are paid for by one entity -- in this case, the federal government.

Statisticians have been telling us for years that Medicare will eventually go broke, and the end time seems to get closer each time one of them gets his/her opinion quoted by the msm. So it's currently a problem in need of a fix. Expanding it certainly won't do that.

------

3:13 PM 11/18/2018

Meaning of the word Socialism is evolving

The meaning of words isn't constant. Looking at words' meaning a few years ago and comparing them with today's usage demonstrates how many have changed. The word "sex" for example. At one time it meant whether a person was male or female. No longer. Now the word most commonly used is "gender."

"Socialism" is another. In the old days it meant government ownership or control of the means of production. Now it means something a little bit more kindly to a large segment of our population. Gallop presents some poll results at The Meaning of "Socialism" to Americans Today comparing 1949 with 2018.

These are the top three. Note how much change has occurred over the decades. And that's with all the access to news about Venezuela and other countries that have tried socialism and transformed into sh*t hole countries.

What Is Your Understanding of the Term "Socialism"?

	2018	1949
	Sep 4-12	Sep 3-8
	%	%
Equality - equal standing for everybody, all equal in rights, equal in distribution	23	12
Government ownership or control, government ownership of utilities, everything controlled by the government, state control of business	17	34
Benefits and services - social services free, medicine for all	10	2

I suppose it's a good thing that government control or ownership of business has dropped. Maybe more capitalism will eventually creep into the predominate understanding of socialism.

------

2:23 PM 11/10/2018

Quote of the week -- from Jon Meacham a shocker FDR said

On Sunday C-Span2 reran a video of Jon Meacham's talk on 9/1/2018 about his newest book titled "The Soul of America: The Battle For Our Better Angels." Video link.

Our quote of the week pertains to a speech Franklin D. Roosevelt gave in which he suggested he might take over with war time executive powers to combat the nation's economy economic crisis. According to Mr. Meacham's research, Eleanor was stunned because the audience reaction implied a desire for a dictator.

The quote starts at around the 37:17 point in the above linked video.

March 4, 1933, when he gave his inaugural address, the line that we all remember from the east front of the capitol is that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. The line that got the biggest applause and a kind of a bloodthirsty cheer, according to Eleanor Roosevelt, who wrote about it that night, was when FDR said the circumstances of the present crisis are such that I may require war time like executive powers. And they roared, and it chilled her, she said. Because she realized that they were ready as the Europeans had proven themselves ready for a strongman or dictator. It terrified her.

This is more bias confirmation for many conservatives and libertarians, as we believe that Democrats and the progressive movement could be easily duped by a would-be dictator into ditching the Constitution and abolishing Congress.

------

1:50 PM 9/30/2018

Libertarian asks interesting question -- do Socialists Mean Well?

Grant Babcock asks the question at libertarianism.org in Do Socialists Mean Well?.

Because fascists have evil ends in mind, their malevolence is obvious. For socialists however, their ill intent is more insidious.

In discussions of illiberal ideologies, socialists are frequently praised for being at least well-intentioned, if naive or ignorant—unlike fascists, who mean to cause harm to certain groups of people. While it goes without saying that fascists have bad intentions, the comparison sets the bar too low for socialists. Conceding that socialists mean well gives them too much credit.

He goes on to explain that the evil in socialism is that it gives government too much power over the individual. He doesn't use the cliche that power corrupts. But that's the whole point of the article.

Those of us who grew up in an earlier era are already afraid of the current trend toward socialistism. So articles like this serve as bias confirmation. But that's not a bad thing when your biases are right to begin with.

As for whether socialists mean well, the question is still out there. Some of them probably do. But they probably think it will serve the downtrodden, and most likely themselves. Unfortunately, the people who actually gain from socialism are the people in power. Everyone else ultimately has to pay for it.

------

2:39 PM 9/26/2018

Mark J. Perry explains why socialism is doomed to fail

The brilliant economist Mark Perry dissects socialism in a four part series. Anyone who thinks socialism is right for the U.S., or any other nation, should read it.

See Part I: ‘Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update,’ Part I.

Part II: ‘Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update,’ Part II.

Part III: ‘Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update,’ Part III.

Part IV: ‘Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update,’ Part IV.

And finally, the full version in PDF: Why Socialism Failed: A 2018 Update.

Meanwhile, Mr. Perry responded to some critics in this post.

Unfortunately, given that adherents to socialism seem drawn to the free stuff they'll get, Mr. Perry's article is likely TLDR for most of them. But here's a snippet that may be a teaser but might provide provide some incentive to read the whole thing.

A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where most of the property is owned or controlled by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

(snip)

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity, it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available, while socialist economies like Venezuela destroy wealth and leave its citizens impoverished, malnourished, sick and desperate.

The strength of market-based capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) Prices determined by market forces, (2) a Profit-and-Loss system of accounting, and (3) Private Property Rights. The failure of socialism in countries like Venezuela can be traced directly to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing features.

Anyway, happy Labor Day!

------

1:08 PM 9/3/2018

Daniel Pipes provides a history lesson on Venezuela -- spoiler alert, unhappy ending

The road to serfdom is paved with false promises.

Venezuela was going strong at one time with natural resources aplenty, having the world's fastest-growing economy in 1980 and ranked as Latin America’s wealthiest country as recently as 2001. But then government happened. Here's Daniel Pipes in Venezuela’s Tyranny of Bad Ideas (alternate link):

Socialism might have been a proven failure globally, but Hugo Chávez convinced Venezuelans to try it. On becoming president in 1999, he stole, dominated, polarized and jailed. Benefiting from about $1 trillion in oil sales during his 14 years as president, he had the means to launch massive social spending programs to secure votes. He could even afford to kill the goose laying golden eggs, replacing competent professionals at the government-owned oil company with agents, stooges and sycophants. In the grandest socialist tradition, his daughter María accumulated a fortune estimated at $4.2 billion in 2015, according to Venezuelan press reports.

“The trouble with socialism,” Margaret Thatcher once observed, “is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Chávez pre-empted that problem by seeking treatment for his cancer in Havana, where, Fox News reports, he “was assassinated by Cuban malpractice.” He died in March 2013, about a year before oil prices tumbled, and conveniently bequeathed the disaster that followed to Nicolás Maduro, his still more brutal and incompetent handpicked successor. Once oil revenues shrank, the true costs of Chávez’ bankrupt ideas became clear. Venezuela is now sinking into totalitarianism, using military force to keep socialism afloat.

Margaret Thatcher certainly had a way with words. And she sure did nail socialism precisely.

------

12:20 PM 8/28/2018

The difference between democratic socialism and old school socialism

So I was watching Andrew Puzder's talk on C-Span2 and came away very impressed with the guy. Too bad he didn't get to serve on Trump's cabinet.

One interesting thing he talked about was the difference between socialism and democratic socialism. He said that according to Bernie Sanders, under socialism the government owned businesses, whereas democratic socialism allowed the original owners to keep their businesses, but the government would runs them. Actually, that sounds more like the difference between communism and socialism.

Here's a distinction found at a website sympathetic to socialism -- either flavor. Difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism. Socialism is defined as businesses owned by the "collective" -- code word for government. But the democratic socialism would be something the citizens had voted for rather than having been forced onto the citizens. The idea that it would have been forced onto business owners doesn't factor into that distinction.

In any event, to those of us who oppose Socialism by any definition, the distinction isn't particularly meaningful.

And finally, here's a dirty little secret worth worrying about. Malcolm Nance is firmly in the resist-Trump camp, but put that aside for a second. He makes a persuasive argument that Vladimir Putin's ultimate goal is to convince enough westerners to vote out their own democracy. Appears as though he's made some significant advances on that goal.

------

9:12 AM 8/12/2018

Democratic Socialism is an adopt a Democrat program

My Democrat acquaintances blanch when I say that the best time for Democrats to be in charge is when the country has no where to go but down. So with the economy on the upswing, they might have a shot.

And with current the mood among Democrats swaying toward this thing called Democratic Socialism, it might be worthwhile to call it like it is. Not long ago it was reported that roughly 47% of Americans don't pay any income tax. And it probably follows that those are among the fans of Democratic Socialism. And they are in full support of any program that requires taxpayers to pay up. Or, as they like to say, pay their fair share.

Basically Democratic Socialism is a renamed income redistribution scheme.

So how about a re-renaming -- call it an "adopt a Democrat" program.

------

1:12 PM 7/31/2018

Ira Stoll on the Vote Where It Counts movement in NY state

The Vote Where It Counts movement in NY state encourages owners of multiple houses to be selective of the jurisdiction in which to vote so as to have the most impact. The purpose, of course, is to help make that blue wave less of a mirage and more of a reality.

The intellectual Ira Stoll notes an irony which he explains in his article at Futureofcapitalism.com. See Vote Where It Counts:

The idea that urban dwellers wealthy enough to afford vacation homes should use their political power to dilute that of rural Americans who aren't lucky enough to have a choice of homes from which to vote seems like it treads awfully close to non-egalitarian means to achieve (allegedly) egalitarian ends.

It certainly does reinforce the belief that the wealthy elite think they know better than the rabble and don't mind forcing it on them.

Right on cue to help make the point is this headline from the satirical site, Babylonbee.com, Bernie Sanders Rails Against ‘Greedy Rich People’ From Third House.

Speaking of Sanders, he not only has multiple homes. He has powerful comrades. De Blasio spends weekend at Bernie Sanders’ summer home.

------

12:06 PM 7/17/2018

If AMLO wins in Mexico they'll have their own socialist paradise ...

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, aka AMLO, tells his audiences what they want to hear, which makes him a typical politician. His propensity for socialism is troubling to those of us North of the border but shouldn't be all that surprising. Read about him at Who is AMLO? Meet Mexico’s presidential hopeful.

So any prospective immigrant to the U.S. seeking a socialist paradise, look no farther than Mexico.

------

9:41 AM 7/1/2018

South Americans watch and learn from Venezuela

The socialist paradise of Venezuela has unraveled, and now we are seeing the end stage of socialism. Others have seen this too, and they've learned the lesson.

Take this item from Monica Showalter: Buried news: Colombia's shantytowns rejected socialism, big time, to avoid 'another Venezuela'. Excerpt:

Sunday's election of a hard-core conservative in Colombia has left the media elites and their pundits befuddled. ...

Now the clarity comes. Poor people voted for a genuine conservative out of terror of becoming another Venezuela, because they know what it is up close. And yes, that's the much-vaunted poor that for years we have been hearing are so poor they can only vote for candidates who offer to shovel the most pork. They didn't. And it wasn't even close. Duque won against his opponent, socialist ex-guerrilla and former Hugo Chavez admirer, Gustavo Petro, by a margin of about 54-42, according to the New York Times. ...

The poor of Colombia have profoundly rejected socialism. Colombians instead elected their very own version of Donald Trump, who has vowed to cut taxes, has promised to get control of Colombia's borders, has already scared the FARC terrorist guerrillas so badly they are offering to come to the negotiating table, and above all, seems to mean to keep Colombia from becoming anything like socialist Venezuela. That's news. Viva Colombia!

Bad news about socialism moves slowly into the mainstream, as noted by Ms. Showalter. In the U.S. a remarkable number of people say they favor socialism. Those of us who reject socialism have to hope that the truth spreads as fast as the promises of free everything offered by socialism's proponents.

------

6:09 AM 6/19/2018

Venezuela -- socialism's showcase

Was Venezuela one of those s___hole countries Trump was talking about? Whether it was or wasn't, the country certainly has become a s___hole. One of the things that has bewildered me lately is why so many Americans claim to be in favor of socialism when there's an example of the disastrous results of a socialist policy just a few countries South of us. How do they rationalize the result with socialism?

Mary Anastasia O’Grady is the Wall Street Journal's resident expert on South America. And her latest in that paper appeared in the 6/11/2018 edition, to wit: Venezuela’s Long Road to Ruin (or here for a work-around):

If anything was more predictable than the mess created by Hugo Chávez’s Marxist Bolivarian Revolution, it is the pathetic effort by socialists to deny responsibility. The Socialist Party of Great Britain tweeted recently that Venezuela’s problem is that socialism has yet to be tried. It blamed the crisis on “a profit-driven capitalist economy under leftist state-control.” Even more preposterous is the claim by some academics that economic liberalism in the 1980s spawned the socialism that has destroyed the country.

Learning from history is impossible if the narrative is wrong. So let’s clear the record: By the time Chávez was elected, Venezuela already had 40 years of socialism under its belt and precious little, if any, experience with free markets.

She goes on to provide the history for the past several decades. Spoiler alert -- they had help from some bad rulers, but the culprit is still socialism.

------

12:50 PM 6/11/2018

A statue the left won't deface -- Karl Marx

China donated an 18-foot statue of Karl Marx for display in the city of his birth to commemorate his May 5 birthday. See Protests as China's Karl Marx statue unveiled in German city of Trier.

For those of us who didn't drink the socialist Kool-Aid, it's astonishing to see people celebrate a man whose ideas contributed to so much human death and property destruction. The Marxist ideology must create such a dreamy world view that people want to reject reality.

When we see teacher striking for more pay, it's hard to forget that public schools are cranking out little socialists who are quick to find fault with America's founding fathers but are oblivious to many of the atrocities committed in the name of socialism. See The Consequences of Historical Ignorance, The Left’s Chilling Refusal to Stop Flirting With Marxist Ideas and Millennials Are Clueless About Communism. Here’s Why That’s a Problem.

Anyway, in spite of the "protests" supposed to have taken place in Trier, it's inconceivable that conservatives would vandalize the Marx statue.

What we need is an education system that teaches kids the value of America's heritage. Furthermore, is it any wonder that conservatives decry the forces that discourage assimilation of immigrants?

------

1:42 PM 5/5/2018

Leftism's objective -- instilling fear in nonbelievers, then taking their property

Dennis Prager should be a force to be reckoned with. But the left doesn't show fear as much as it tries to instill fear. Here's Prager in Fear of the Left: The Most Powerful Force in America Today:

Leftism -- in its incarnations, such as Marxism, communism and socialism; expressed through egalitarianism, environmentalism and feminism; in its denigration of capitalism and Western civilization, especially America and Israel; in its supplanting of Christianity and Judaism; through its influence on Christianity and Judaism; in its celebration of race; and in its replacing of reason with romanticism -- has almost completely taken over the news and entertainment media and institutions of education.

There is a largely (though not entirely) nonviolent reign of ideological terror in America. In almost every area of life, people fear antagonizing the left.

Mr. Prager goes on to demonstrate that theory with examples of conservatives intimidated by leftists. What a frightening concept. It's easy for those of us out here in flyover country to think conservatives should stand up for themselves. But we're not standing in their shoes. They probably have a legitimate reason to fear the left.

And it's not just because the left wants to take away their property.

------

1:14 PM 5/1/2018

Los Angeles mayor is so compassionate he's giving away your space to the homeless

L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti should feel some responsibility for the homeless in Los Angeles. It's not because he's so compassionate, it's because housing is so heavily regulated few can build anything, so he's part of the problem.

Not to worry. The government is here to help. Andrew Malcolm tells us about the proposed solution in How about housing some homeless in your backyard?. Here's how the proposal would work:

Under the program the county would lend $75,000 to homeowners to build a backyard house or $50,000 for a garage-type renovation for up to six units. Loan principal would be reduced for each year a formerly homeless person occupies the unit.

After 10 years, the loan would be forgiven and homeowners would be free to do as they want with the building.

One should wonder whether the formerly homeless residents of these dwellings would care enough about them to perform regular upkeep and what recourse, if any, the homeowner would have if they didn't.

Meanwhile, this video uploaded on Christmas day 2016 made the rounds a while back. It's rather astonishing to see how many people live on the streets in downtown Los Angeles. Aside from refugee camps, there's really no worthwhile solution.

------

1:13 PM 4/12/2018

Social justice warriors have lately been at war with the Confederacy -- wait til they learn it was socialist

Among the many folks who decry monuments to the Confederacy there are undoubtedly quite a few who say they favor socialism over capitalism. They would probably be hard pressed to define either of those two systems, but never mind.

There's a small bit of irony here, because the Confederacy was in large part, socialist. See Chris Calton's article, War Socialism and the Confederate Defeat. As you can tell from the title, he contends that socialism may have helped the Union win. Here's an excerpt:

By the end of the war, President Jefferson Davis nationalized Southern railroads, steamboats, and telegraph lines. The Confederate bureaucracy, by 1863, boasted a whopping 70,000 employees. The foundation for such a swollen bureaucracy was the Confederate Constitution itself, which made it illegal for the president to fire government workers (this clause was included to try to prevent political patronage).

War socialism was implemented at the state-level as well, as states intervened in the agricultural economy, hoping to stimulate food production. Limits were placed on the production of cotton and tobacco, for example, but taxes to the central government were also payed “in kind,” meaning that the government quickly became the largest cotton merchant in the global market. As the economy was thrown into chaotic misallocation from the heavy-handed and rapidly implemented government controls, inflation ensured that the central authorities had first access to any goods.

Despite all of these problems, it is the nationalization of the Confederate economy that historians point to as an impressive success. Yet no connection is made between these many government controls and the shortages of food that plagued the Confederate economy, which led to increasing numbers of deserters. On April 2, 1863, the capital city of Richmond suffered the infamous bread riot that did not end until President Davis turned Confederate troops against the rioters. Historians correctly recognize this as a symptom of logistical problems that plagued the Confederacy and helped secure Union victory in the war, but the connection between the bread riots and the supposed successes of nationalized industries is rarely observed. ...

In explaining the outcome of the war, historians have yet to include Confederate war socialism as among the factors contributing to the CSA defeat.

Very interesting theory. It's plausible, but to this blogger, the news that the South resorted to socialism in the first place is the shocker. Then again, maybe it shouldn't be such a surprise since they were mostly Democrats.

------

1:54 PM 12/30/2017