Category: Uncategorized

“All sciences are vain and full of errors that are not born of experience, the mother of all knowledge.” Leonardo da Vinci

The term “science” comes from the classical Latin “scientia” meaning knowledge, and da Vinci’s quote above makes clear where that comes from. Knowledge based on experience and observation is called “empirical” rather than theoretical. This is an essential differentiation as an unproven theory is not knowledge, and therefore not real until it is proven to be so through experience and observation; if you want to understand what reality is, you rely on the empirical.

Aristotle stated that empiricism derives from the perception of our senses, which is the source of the concepts in terms of which we seek to understand reality. Another word for this is commonsense, an essential skill for survival and the most important one that we can teach our children; there is a definite learning experience in this as Mark Twain explains when he said that “Good decisions come from experience. Experience comes from making bad decisions.” Commonsense is a skill of logic, especially when considering that there are always consequences of what we decide to say and do.

It is apparent that common sense is not so common for governments as they repeatedly ignore empirical evidence and subsequently the obvious consequences of their policies, yet somehow expect different results; it’s like failing an open book test where history has recorded this. There are many examples of government perpetuating or repeating policies that make things worse; inflation is a great example. Repeatedly, based on some crisis the government either created or imagined, our money supply was increased, which meant more of it chasing goods and services. While the currency increase is monetary inflation, the inevitable consequence is price inflation. Governments do not admit to errors, they only seek to blame something or someone else, which in this case is greedy business; anyone with common sense should see through such deflections from reality.

There are many more examples where commonsense is ignored because most politicians are tone deaf to reality. To focus on a solution, we need first to identify a real problem, and empirical evidence is where to start; partisan narratives are not reality but virtue signaling that plays well for elections, but not for solutions, and if we embrace them, we may yet become the society of George Orwell’s 1984 where “The heresy of heresies was common sense.”

As with a prior post, this is one that was initially published 10/20/20. While the pandemic is behind us, and Trump has been replaced by Biden, we seem to be in a situation like that in the movie “Groundhog Day”, except that the figures and statistics have mostly gotten the worse.

Bubbles

Since my previous blog “Bubble Economy” on 11/13/19, that bubble has grown even more ominous as we are soon to exceed $30T in our national debt.  Does any rational person believe that the US will ever be able to repay such an egregious debt?

US Bonds, which used to be held in high regard by other sovereign states, principally Japan and China who at one time held 18% of US debt, are selling off by the billions. Fear that they would be holding the bag in the event of default is rising; it is not an irrational fear. To counter that lack of confidence the Federal Reserve bought huge amounts of US bonds with equally huge amounts of newly printed money from the UST; more air in that bubble.

With bonds, as interest rates fall prices rise, so with the lowest rates in history better to dump at a high since the yield is so pathetic.  But then where to go for yield?  Try the stock market, fed by such easy credit its valuations are pushing up prices beyond fundamental levels.  However, given that the easy credit is fed by debt, where will that lead?

Well, we’ve seen that movie before; it will lead to where it did in 1929, 2007 and….well hard to say, but sooner than anyone will want.  It may start on headline news, an algorithm gone wrong (or right), increased defaults and bankruptcies, all the above; inevitably such outsized debt, annually now larger than our GNP, will be called in and that will be ugly.

So why haven’t we as a nation learned from the past? Why do we make the same mistakes over and over again? An interesting comment of such behavior I recently read was from Thomas King, an American Indian writing about failed US policies regarding the native peoples of America, who wrote that “For an individual, one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again in the same way and expecting different results. For a government, such behavior is called policy.”

Bangles

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political philosopher who wrote “On Democracy in America” after touring the country in 1831.  His observations influenced much of written American history and political science in this country, and were comparatively critical of French democracy.  He found that the republican structure and constitution of the US was a reason for its success. However, he was critical of much of its social structure like slavery, religious zealotry, the social suppression of free expression, and the political tendencies to affect the outcome of elections legislatively; on this last item he wrote “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”  

Well it didn’t take long for that to happen; stimulus anyone? Like any bangle or trinket, such as the $24 worth of glass beads that bought Manhattan, it’s meant to allure us into thinking it’s actually something of value that will improve our lives, while actually buying them, defended as a means to protect us from ourselves by waving the pandemic flag in our face. It’s a way for us to willingly sell ourselves out to the very crooks that locked us down for our own good and destroyed our means of livelihood.

Like an opioid, it has dulled common sense to the point that we actually have a situation where the US government now represents 70% of our GNP; but there is no product involved, unless you call debt a product. Yet, that is exactly what is being sold to the American electorate by both presidential candidates.  In fact, despite resistance in his own party, Trump actually supports another stimulus in excess of what Biden proposes. Remember, this is the guy that has lived off other people’s money his whole life so this should not surprise anyone.

What has become obvious is that this election is on the auction block, will go to the highest bidder, and the account will be drawn from the pockets of the American people.

Boondoggles

Interesting word, first coined by a boy scout in 1927 to describe a uniform decoration; it later came to mean something of no value.  It was often ascribed to government programs during the New Deal era wasteful or pointless but carried on anyway due to policy or political motivations. We have this today in so many government programs too numerous to cover. Let’s just take something we have all participated in, whether we like it or not; I’m talking about Social Security.

There are many misconceptions about the original law establishing Social Security, like it was initially voluntary; it was discussed as a voluntary annuity, but enacted as mandatory. It is true that benefits were not to be taxed, but that was amended in 1983.  FICA deductions were supposed to be limited to the first $3K of income at 1%, but the limit and rate were constantly increased.

But why should there be a mandatory investment in an annuity that has no guarantee of return on investment like common annuities you can get from any financial institution, which have a guaranteed benefit and fixed rate? Answer is there shouldn’t be, but again this is defended as a means to protect us from ourselves, the panacea of all tyrannies.

Per the Trustees Report of last year, the Social Security Trust would go bankrupt by 2035. However, as it is a legislated entitlement, it must be funded, but with what? I once read an article in Forbes about the Madoff scandal wherein they gave a pretty good idea of exactly what a Ponzi Scheme is: “A Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources.”

Now consider the plight of those “new investors”; they are anyone who is subject to FICA withholdings and who will not be 62, the earliest age you can claim benefits, by 2035.  Essentially, if you were born after 1973, you are paying into a soon to be bankrupt annuity.  Would you voluntarily do that? The same goes for Medicare and Medicaid, both funded by FICA withholdings and deductions from Social Security benefits.

Again, it is a legislated entitlement, so it must be funded. However, it is no longer a sustainable trust as its liabilities exceed its revenues, so that means more taxes, more debt, or a combination of both.  The Ponzi scheme collapsed and the angel investors to the rescue are….well you.

Now consider the ACA; it too was at first mandatory, but that mandate was deemed illegal, and its survival all together is likely to depend on Supreme Court review. If it were simply a network to provide information to acquire insurance it would at least have a viable legitimacy, but again, as with Social Security, voluntary is not how governments are prone to act. Choice is not an option when seeking the greater good.

End Game

While history has taught us innumerable times that you can’t spend your way out of debt, it is a lesson ignored. The most famous of those who proposed such madness was John Maynard Keynes. When Keynes was confronted with the failure of his ideas of endless spending and consumption as unsustainable in the long run and that they would prevent the markets from functioning properly, especially in recoveries, he cynically quipped that “In the long run, we will all be dead.”

When Trump was given a brief on America’s growing debt crisis in 2017 by the few remaining fiscally responsible members of his own party, his response was “Yeah, but I won’t be here.” The fact that this puts the futures of our children and grandchildren in jeopardy is irrelevant to narcissistic sociopaths like Trump and Keynes. The immediate need of those in power is to keep that power, and the means includes bribing the public with the public’s money.

Welcome to the United States of Debt.

This was a post published back on 03.07.20. As I said in my prior post, I will be publishing some old ones that I find relevant to our current times, so here you go.

I am not a superstitious person, but I don’t discount fate. I think fate in most cases is created by something you do or say, resulting in someone reacting to that, and in turn you responding, and suddenly you’re in a conversation that you never expected; suddenly fate is at play, unintentionally created.

Such is the case with my close encounter on the virtual market place of ideas called social media.  I came across some articles on Vox Populi that I found interesting and thoughtful, providing perspective on issues that engaged me despite the source, and I commented.  Vox Populi is in the words of its founder and publisher Michael Simms “… unashamedly progressive in its approach to politics…” Now as I have written before, the political label of “Progressive” to me is ambiguous, at times also exclusionary, and at other times bordering on deceptive to avoid being viewed as synonymous with socialism; labels in politics can be as misleading as those on cereals.

My comments apparently were well received and precipitated a series of exchanges with Michael Simms. So here you have an avowed Libertarian and Progressive connecting because of comments I made about articles he published that I found interesting and engaging. The articles were about the torture the US engaged in on the War-On-Terror, an obviously slanted test posted for readers to take based on song lyrics composed with a progressive message, and the US Warfare State.

So what is the perspective provided to me?  Well for one, this exchange reinforces my concern about labels.  What is a progressive anyway, other than an overused and at times generalized label, same as can be said about libertarian; in that sense we share a similar fate, i.e. generalization for media dissemination.

To some degree this is a self-inflicted wound.  Most who identify with these labels insist on certain characteristics that exclude others who may share many of the same beliefs. A consequence of this syndrome is the inability to define principles that can be communicated coherently. For those who are like me libertarians, do you know that there are those who also share that “label” but are socialists?

To be clear, I believe a libertarian is someone who supports a civil society founded on the core existential reality of the basic natural right that every individual human being owns themselves; from this all other rights are derived, and that this in turn “progresses” to how individuals interact not only in their own self-interest, but as a society.  Politically this means a system that protects individual liberties, and economically freedom in the market place to pursue what each individual sees as their own interests, free of coercion to the contrary.  

What I have found problematic in understanding progressives is ambiguity, and in some cases hostility, in this regard.  What I saw in these articles were connections to core libertarian beliefs, even if unintentional, but nevertheless apparent. I was well aware that Vox Populi was a progressive publication, which made what I read even more engaging.

At one point Michael invited me to write an article, asking “…would you have an article that is possibly publishable in VP?”, and at another time asking me to write an article for publication on VP for his review to see if it would be “…a good fit for Vox Populi.” 

Those last exchanges were disappointing, an opportunity lost. I think that all Americans, regardless of political affiliation or perspective, would agree that our current environment of tribal polarization is toxic to a productive political discourse. So call me a hopeless romantic, but I thought that a bridge across the political riff could be built based on some common ground like aversion to war, torture, etc.

Michael’s last message was “Thanks, John. I’ll continue reading your posts. Take care, Mike.” That last phrase “take care” is like a closed door, a farewell message essentially signally that we are not open to any ideas we find contrary to our own. I’ll have to live with that, but those at Vox Populi should not. The worst service we can do for our readers is to either cater only to what we think they want to hear, or insulate them from what we think they don’t.

“Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.” George Carlin

This post is about some things that have happened recently that aptly illustrate what Carlin observed some years back. There are many examples of these, but I want to keep my posts short; better short so I don’t tax my small blog following with a lot of time to read them. In this post I will provide a few examples.

The recently crafted bipartisan Senate bill to address the border crisis was finally published; it is about 350 pages long, and full of so many legal loopholes as to be virtually meaningless. Add to this that we already have existing immigration laws that, if executed, would address the crisis. I am not referring to the various executive orders by the Trump administration that Biden’s subsequent executive orders reversed, but laws that already address the issues at hand. Further, the bill includes provisions for even more foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel, exceeding the funds included for border security, as if protecting the borders of other countries is somehow more important than protecting our own.

Then we are told that there is strong bipartisan support for the military action against Iranian proxies in the Middle East in retaliation for the attacks on our bases; few voices were raised objecting to what we are doing there in the first place. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recently lectured against those few voices accusing them of a leadership lapse of isolationism. This guy needs to understand some founding principles as expressed by the founders themselves, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who clearly stated that that the US should not engage in alliances with any nation, but freely and peacefully engage in commerce with all.

Recently there were bipartisan Congressional hearings about the dangers of social media, during which various tech leaders were inappropriately attacked as if they were engaging in some criminal activity; the basis for such accusations were some tragic incidents involving children due to online bullying, dark messaging, and sexual targeting. While these same things, and worse, happened while I was a kid, they are more widely known now on social media. A bipartisan attack on free speech does not cure these ills, parental control and guidance would. We don’t need an Orwellian solution for what should be societal common sense.

Something that is commonly practiced by both major parties, a bipartisan default if you will, is playing the “saving democracy” card; Democrats accuse Trump of threatening democracy, while Republicans accuse Biden of selling it out for personal gain. The fact is that both parties do little or nothing to honor their oath of office to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. I recently came across a word that sent me to my dictionaries, a word that describes a condition known as alethophobia, a fear or dislike of the truth. Whether any of the above are examples of this, or just plain outright lies or equivocations, it seems as if it is an occupational hazard of politicians.

I also have found that there are other topics I wanted to write about, but in reviewing some prior posts of just a few years back, I found them relevant to the same situations we are experiencing now, or as Clarence Darrow once said, “History repeats itself. That’s one of the things wrong with history.” These posts will be republished following this one.

“Equivocation is halfway to lying and lying the whole way to hell.” William Penn

While polls soon after October 7^th showed that about 53% of US citizens supported Israel, that declined to 41% later in October and to 39% in November. Polls are a sketchy deal at best, but the trend is clear that there is a rise in antisemitism in the world; what is most alarming is that this includes America. The massive rallies and protests in support of Hamas are stunning; while I am not surprised about this in Europe and the Middle East, I am shocked about it in American cities and universities.

I was shocked as to how we got to the point where the horrors perpetrated by Hamas were being portrayed by many in government, the media, and universities as a war of Palestinian liberation. We even have the bizarre statement by the Associated Press that its membership should not use the word “terrorists” but “militants” when describing Hamas because it “politicizes” the conflict. When the New York Times and other legacy media accepted and reported as fact the claim by Hamas that Israel had bombed the Al-Shifa Hospital, the streets of America exploded with violent pro-Palestinian demonstrations and antisemitic rhetoric. While the story was a complete Hamas fabrication, retractions were not only late, but the New York Times subsequently went so far as to provide its own analysis that it could still have been by Israel, despite the overwhelming evidence by US and other intelligence agencies that it was a “misfired” rocket by Islamic Jihad, which actually landed in the parking lot.

The shock wore off, but not the revulsion that here in the USA, home of the free and to the world’s largest Jewish population outside of Israel, we have such an alarming rise in antisemitism. It is true that America has its share of racism with the KKK and other white supremacist groups; consider the WWI statement by Henry Ford that “I know who caused the war: German-Jewish bankers. What I oppose most is the international Jewish money power that is met in every war. That is what I oppose – a power that has no country and that can order the young men of all countries out to death.” That this statement of racial and ethnic hate was published by an icon of American industry should have shocked Americans, but apparently, like today, it was given a free pass.

While the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is one of the oldest in that region’s history, it does have its roots in something very basic and traditional; it’s about land, and who should own it, based on race and religion, the two most prevalent vehicles for hate as it has been for millennia. In recent history the truth about the UN resolution that created the nation of Israel is that it had serious flaws that have plagued both Israelis and the Palestinians for the last 75 years. However, this neither justifies the Hamas atrocities nor explains Western antisemitism. The former is a result of cultural clashes, and the latter is a result of political ideology.  

The cultural, and often violent confrontations between the Muslim and European worlds have plagued Europe and the Middle East from the crusades through to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The roots of Western antisemitism are also religious with the Inquisition and Pogroms being apparent examples. However, given the ever-receding religious context in the West does not adequately explain antisemitism in the 20^th and 21^st centuries, except to say that politics has become the new religion. Even though many Jews are what political scientists would say are in the left spectrum, various infamous regimes, such as Fascists, Nazis, Soviets, Peronists, etc., all have persecuted Jews to various extents, most horribly with the Holocaust. What they all had in common politically was socialism, which invariably requires authoritarianism. What the Jews are perceived as, including by Henry Ford, are money men, i.e., greedy capitalists.

While such thinking is empirically flawed, it is unfortunately pervasive, especially in Western universities. What is referred to as progressive is historically regressive, merely new look socialism; portraying Jews as greedy capitalists controlling the world is simply ignorant tribalism. This is consistent with the collectivist mentality of seeing people not as individuals, but solely as groups and through the ever-present racial prism; when Hamas supporters chant “From the river to the sea!”, what they are saying is its now high time to support the genocide of the Jews. What Western Hamas supporters fail to realize is that they have little if any commonality with the likes of Hamas; while the progressives claim socialist ideals, Hamas and other radical Islamists want a medieval theocracy, which would in effect eradicate many of the tenets of the progressive movement.

While the Biden administration has publicly expressed its support for Israel, it inappropriately lectures it about providing a “pause” (cease fire) for humanitarian relief in Gaza, while not calling for the same for the hostages Hamas took, until so reminded by Israel. While there have been about 80 attacks by Iranian proxy terrorist organizations on US bases and ships in the region, the administration has done little more than bomb warehouses and a few training centers; these are acts of war yet are treated as opportunities to prevent an escalation of violence in the region, which in fact is already on fire. In one press conference after another, when asked about support for Israel and deterrent action against Iran, we hear the ubiquitous default phrase of “Yes, but….” as they go on about how Israel must ensure the safety of the Palestinian people, or pause for humanitarian aid, or contain the conflict.

On December 5^th there was a House of Representatives’ hearing on the calls for Jewish genocide on the campuses of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the responses by the presidents of these three elite institutions to a simple direct question of whether or not they considered such calls harassment under their campus policies were clear examples of cowardly equivocation, using such evasive terms as “…depending on the context…” went viral. The reactions of many alumni were encouragingly unequivocal, canceling contributions and calling for resignations or dismissals. Harvard’s famous alumnus, Cornel West, has repeatedly stated that the student groups at Harvard calling for the genocide of Jews were correct about Israel being the most responsible for the recent terrorist attacks but that such statements lacked nuanced context; that such equivocating statements about these atrocities comes from the Ivy League elite speaks volumes about the decay and decline of these American institutions.

There was a time before the Civil War where pro-slavery religious and political leaders justified it based on rather equivocating biblical and historical references; after the war, they justified the suppression of African American civil rights based on the same and on race. There were also those that would accept no equivocation about such evils, like the famous abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who made clear that “I am in earnest. I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” Americans need to stand up and be heard, and not fear the truth that those who support such evils like Hamas, are not only antisemitic, but enemies of everything that is good.

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” Albert Einstein

We are being bombarded with endless talk about artificial intelligence, yet no one seems to be able to define it with any real clarity. Despite this, such luminaries as Elon Musk, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg meet behind closed doors with US Senators to discuss regulations about this as if it is an existential and imminent threat to the human race. We are warned that if left unregulated, it will eventually replace humans all together. Such catastrophizing is another example of creating a crisis where none exists, as if we don’t have enough people with such cognitive disorders already.

This is not what Einstein meant about intelligence and imagination. What he was saying is that real intelligence is the ability to create with the knowledge we have. Imagination is the cognitive ability to use what we learn through our senses; it is a uniquely human trait that can’t be mimicked by machines, even robots informed by computers. True, computers can be “programmed” for memory and logic, but only to the extent of the power in the software; all of that is human input.  However, humans make judgements about things all the time based on not just reasoning and logic, but individual values which are always subjective.

Not long ago at dinner with friends I had ordered one of my favorite seafoods, grilled octopus; what can I say, it is the Sicilian in me. I was then treated to a discourse on the fact that octopi are sentient beings. This is true, but so are all living things that have a central nervous system giving them perceptions that make them aware of their environment. I don’t know if this means they have emotions, but maybe; I know my dog does. I am not much of a beef eater, but my friends are, and the bovines in the animal kingdom have central nervous systems. I wonder if my friends will abstain from beef.

The phrase “artificial intelligence” seems like an oxymoron. While computers are becoming faster and more powerful at processing and calculating, they lack the cognitive ability to understand, including and most critically our fellow human beings. Despite all the attempts to mimic the human brain, an organ medical science readily admits we have little knowledge of, we are asked to believe our technocracy has the ability to do so. When such hubris combines with politics, nothing good will come of that. Technology is by definition the application of science to problem solving; that is not something to regulate, but contrary to catastrophizing, to nurture with the freedom to go wherever it may lead. Put another way, fear is not an alternative to imagination.

Let’s assume for the purpose of argument that artificial intelligence presents the threat to human existence these elites would have us believe; ever hear of the “kill switch”? You should as you use it every time you decide to shut the lights off. Techies are familiar with this as it’s the most obvious solution in the event that the catastrophizers are right about AI, i.e., kill the power. What if AI doesn’t allow that to happen? That is a really unintelligent question since AI is not a physical entity blocking human action. While the probability of the need to do this is beyond remote since humans program AI, the fact that we have that ability shows the ultimate reason why AI is no threat to us, i.e., we are real, AI is “artificial”.

“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” Albert Einstein.

“If you could imagine dissonance assuming human form – and what else is man? – this dissonance would need, to be able to live, a magnificent illusion which would spread a veil of beauty over its own nature.” Friedrich Nietzsche

While I have often criticized the Fed, I must admit that at least they have a firm idea of what they can and can’t do about inflation.  I will differ to a later post whether the Fed has gone too far with rate hikes, so for now recognizing the enormous harm that inflation does to people, and given the Fed’s mandate under law, they are utilizing the tools available, i.e., interest rates, money supply and their balance sheet. The problem is that all that only applies on a monetary level.  While their tighter policies have had some effect on inflation, that has been significantly offset by the egregious fiscal policies of the administration, which in truth is a continuation of prior administrations, only now seemingly on steroids.

While the quote by Friedrich Nietzsche is from “The Birth of Tragedy”, a work devoted to art form and not economics and politics, it captures the essence of how dissonance can be disguised.  The dissonance between the Fed policies toward inflation and those of the administration expose how these incompatible policies are being disguised with an illusion of prosperity. Time will show that this dissonance, if left uncorrected, will eventually have the same effect as if both policies ignored inflation. Should the administration reverse course and show some semblance of fiscal prudence, which is highly unlikely, it would bring us sooner to the inevitable recession economists are talking about, either as a hard or soft landing, the differences being one of degree; at least we will reach the point where the potential for cleansing the distorting effects of the poor policies of the past will occur. What will happen at that point may unfortunately rely more on politics than sound economics.

The construct for the illusion is one of circumstances and consequences. The circumstances go back to the early 20^th century during the Wilson administration and exacerbated by the FDR administration. Later on, and even further again with Nixon’s administration; subsequently the repetition of all those policies to more current circumstances like the endless wars, financial crises, accommodative monetary policies, irresponsible fiscal policies, all contributed to the consequences from these self-inflicted wounds. While this is not a blog post to address the history of all that, please see prior posts that do. What I want to do is focus on the construct of the illusion noted.

An instructive peak behind the veil of illusion is with the GDP. The official government report is a 5% GDP month-over-month. How this will translate on an annual basis is much debated, but what is not debatable is the huge size of government both in costs and expenditures; that this is being included in the GDP data is a distortion disguising the fact that government has no production but only consumption of the nation’s wealth; in effect the government is an example of the economic concept of a “rent seeker”, i.e., an entity that takes wealth without earning it. (This is not to be confused with rents due under a real estate lease.) We can see this in the reciprocal transactions between government and corporations through grants, subsidies, bailouts, tariff protections, political campaign donations, etc., usually practiced through the lobbying efforts of those with access to the powers that control the purse, the money in which comes from taxes, fees, and often from monetary inflation.

As acceleration is a rate of change in velocity, inflation is a rate of change in currency value. While the interest rate and money supply actions by the Fed have decelerated inflation, we still suffer the burden of decreased purchasing power until such time as we have deflation; that usually comes as part of a recession, unless of course we have a similar circumstance as we had with “Stagflation” in the 70’s and 80’s.  A consequence of increased interest rates is decreasing credit availability. This primarily affects households and small/medium businesses as banks can’t attract the capital to lend; traditionally that came from savings account deposits, but now households and small/medium businesses find far better returns in stocks and bonds or rely on what used to be “disposable income” just to make ends meet.   

A friend recently argued that the government’s policy of increased interest rates is intuitively illogical as it increases the interest due on its ever-growing debt. True the debt service increases, but what that friend and many Americans misunderstand is that the government doesn’t pay the debt service because the debt is ours and so we will pay it. Understanding that helps explain why there hasn’t been more of an impact on inflation; given its outsized position in the data used for GMP, and how that weight is erroneously included in that data, government has no incentive to kill the illusion created.

The consequence of such an illusion is the displacement of capital in the economy from the productive investment households and small/medium businesses require to grow, or even survive, to the nonproductive consumption of an ever-growing government behemoth; in effect it is destroying the economic backbone of a free society, and likely the very freedoms that come with it.  As noted above, when we reach the end game of these inherently flawed policies, we will have the opportunity to change those policies and cleanse the distorting effects; the issue is will that be based on sound economics or more corrupt politics? That may very well depend on an election next year, which at this time appears headed for a repeat performance. While I am an eternal optimist, I am tempered by Mark Twain’s famous adage that “It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”

“Ours may be the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an age of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity.”  Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell likely never imagined the atrocities advocated in current education or the political support for chemical or surgical sex changes for children. That some states legislatively provide for doing so, even without parental consent, is morally malignant, but deemed a “progressive” policy is beyond any humanistic concept of decency. Among the animal species on this planet, you can’t find a more repugnant treatment of offspring. It was Alexandre Dumas who said “How is it that little children are so intelligent and men so stupid? It must be education that does it.”

Back in 12/31/20 I wrote a post titled “Twisted”, which included a reference to the term “comprachicos” in Victor Hugo’s novel “The Man Who Laughs”; it was a term referring to the 16C to 18C horrible practice of buying children for the purpose of disfiguring them for the amusement of royalty in the carnival shows of freaks in European courts. One of the great horrors of the Nazi death camps were the obscene experiments performed on children, yet here in America we have the bizarre practice of indoctrinating our young about gender affirming surgery; how this country has sunk to a level equivalent to the barbarism of such psychopaths is extremely disturbing.

Even without the horrific results of such insanity, we have had the disastrous results from the social isolation during the mindless lockdowns during COVID. Just a couple of years back the report from the CDC confirmed that social isolation for children is linked to poor outcomes; in 2021, emergency rooms in 38 children’s hospitals saw a 47% increase in the number of suicide and self-injury cases in the first nine months of the year among children 5 to 8, and a 182% jump among kids ages 9 to 12, compared to 2016. There was a 22.3 percent spike in ER trips for potential suicides by children aged 12 to 17 in summer 2020 compared to 2019.

Instead of addressing the issues underlying such horrors, we have states like Michigan passing legislation making it a crime punishable by fines and imprisonment for misusing pronouns; it is likely that other progressive dominated legislatures will follow. Should anyone object to this mindless woke ideology, they will be labeled extremist, oppressors, or some such nonsense, in order to marginalize them. There seems to be a growing discontent with these hateful policies as some states are banning gender affirming surgery; this issue has been politically harnessed creating even further polarization. The welfare of children should never be a political, but a societal issue, a common ground against these evils perpetrated by an ideology of hate of human virtue in favor of human vices; we are faced with the Nazi and Soviet like practice of brainwashing children with the politicization of education.

It was Goethe who once said that “Unlike grown-ups, children have little need to deceive themselves.” In that spirit a rock group from the late seventies wrote lyrics in the song “Another Brick In The Wall” promoting a revolt against indoctrination in education, the lyrics of which I always found inspiring:

“We don’t need no education – We don’t need no thought control – No dark sarcasm in the classroom – Teachers leave them kids alone – Hey, teachers, leave them kids alone – All in all it’s just another brick in the wall – All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.”

“I’ve had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened.”  Mark Twain

According to Psychology Today, “Catastrophizing is a cognitive distortion that prompts people to jump to the worst possible conclusion, usually with very limited information or objective reason to despair. When a situation is upsetting, but not necessarily catastrophic, they still feel like they are in the midst of a crisis.” The term itself was first coined by Dr. Albert Ellis in 1962 regarding patients with high anxiety and depression affecting their cognitive abilities. While the term and definition is relatively modern this phenomenon has many historical contexts, most notable was in 1798 when the English scholar Thomas Malthus argued that human population growth would soon outpace the ability to feed it, which would lead to war, disease and famine ending the species. This is called the Malthusian Theory, which has been empirically proven wrong. 

Despite the fact that Malthus was wrong on both the growth of population and technology, we have doomers like famous biologist Paul Ehrlich basically espousing the same thing, with such dire predictions in 1969 of mass starvation in the 1970’s and other calamitous outcomes, unless there is a serious enforced reduction in population growth. Inevitably he has had to update his prediction on a regular basis to keep up with an ever growing population maintained by the advances in science and technology. This past May is the 50^th anniversary of Ehrlich’s famous book “The Population Bomb”; he celebrated that with another update on the end of humanity.

However, disciples of Malthus such as Ehrlich need not worry as their catastrophizing has produced a result that will likely cause a decline in the rate of population growth. By 2042 all US Population growth will be a result of immigration as the size of American families continues to decline, as does the very number of families themselves due to new generations avoiding marriage and/or having children, or at best no more than two, which results in a net zero or negative growth. Europe is in a similar situation and China even worse given the lag effect of the one-child/family policy. With the exception of India, much is the same for the rest of the world. With China the causal effect is policy driven, but with the US and Europe it’s psychological; if you indoctrinate youth with catastrophic mentalities regarding just about everything, why would anyone consider bringing children into such a world?

In the US “Baby Boomers” currently comprise about 21% of the population, down from 28% in 1999. The alphabet generations that followed, i.e. X, Y (Millennial) and Z, all range at about the same percentage as current Boomers; in effect, it appears as a flat line of growth but actually it’s negative as none reached the peak that Boomers did. Coupled with disastrous government policies that have caused irreparable damage to the economy with inflation, lack of productivity, increasing scarcities and growing violent conflicts, it’s understandable that we will see a decline in population growth, and at some point a decline in population. While I believe that such a trend is reversible, it is more a hope than an observation; hope is not a plan, so for that reversal to become a reality we common folks should and can address this catastrophizing trend in our culture.

Since Malthus’ dire predictions, the world population has increased seven fold, but per capita wealth, knowledge and overall prosperity has increased to the point that poverty has been cut to less than half what it was when Ehrlich made his predictions. In effect, the more people, the more production in just about everything. The problem has been that people have not been allowed to be free enough to do even better, and keep more of what they create, and that problem is getting worse as governments become ever bigger, sapping the life blood of society.  Governments produce nothing, so they have to rely on those they govern for their existence; this is a parasitical relationship that unless reversed will have worse catastrophic consequences than Malthus or Ehrlich predicted.   

We should start with education, and there are hopeful signs there as parents become ever more involved, as they should. It is parents who need to be accountable for what their children are taught, responsible for their welfare and have the moral right and authority to decide how and where they are schooled. The last thing we as a free society should tolerate is a government in charge of education; we’ve seen the dire consequences of that in history with Soviet Russia, Khmer Rouge, Nazi Germany and the CCP, just to name a few. Thankfully the Supreme Court declared in 1997 that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the parental right regarding the welfare and education of their children.

While there’s no guarantee that all parents will always make the “right” decision regarding their children’s welfare and education, there’s no better way to instill a positive life outlook and self-esteem than in the love and care of a family. A positive policy that we should demand from government is to do whatever it takes to make sure that the family is always placed ahead of any agency, beauocracy, school board or teacher’s union; those institutions have been the source of the catastrophizing ideologies dominating our educational institutions for generations now, and the growing trend for parents to choose alternatives is the best hope for the future.

“I was educated once; it took me years to get over it.” Mark Twain

“There has now been created a world in which the success of others is a grievance, rather than an example.” Thomas Sowell

The word equity has traditionally referred to the amount of money the owner of an asset would be paid after selling it and any debts associated with the asset were paid off. An example is a mortgage that increases in equity for the home owner as the loan is paid off until eventually they’re fully vested. Politically it now means a guarantee of outcome; you can’t expect an equal outcome among people unless they’re the same in all respects. It is theoretically and empirically obvious that no two people are identical; it then follows that in order to guarantee an equality of outcome people must be controlled or you risk a variance in outcomes.

The sinister reality of equity in the political context is that it requires the malevolent manipulation of society to assure that no one exceeds the least common denominator; it is the antithesis of meritocracy wherein people are judged and rewarded based on performance. An example of this manipulation is the withholding of National Merit Scholarship notices by the Fairfax County school district, starting with the administrators of the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, the top rated high school in the country, actually admitting to parents that they did this in order to avoid hurting the feelings of students that did not qualify. While the Virginia Attorney General is investigating this on the basis of a violation of civil rights, the harm was already done as it affected those students who qualified but could not include that in their college applications.

The genesis of equity begins with the misunderstanding of equality of opportunity; no two people, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or political association, can possibly have the same opportunities as anyone else because no two people are the same. Therefore, it’s empirically obvious that we should not expect an equal outcome among people unless each and every human being is the same in all respects. This equality of opportunity under the law is guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment, and repeated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which specifically forbids discrimination in employment. Under the law, opportunity does not mean the right to anything else, and certainly provides no equality of outcome.

It is this equity, this guarantee of outcome that is such a dangerous concept in a free society. As the great economist Friedrich Hayek explained, “From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.”

What we actually have with this equity is a disdain of liberty because it does not yield an equality of outcome; except in regards to the law it can’t do so, which is the basis for the very concept of liberty to begin with. Of course there is the ultimate alternative to liberty known as slavery. That such evil ideas as equity originated among the university elite in society should not be a surprise, which led George Orwell to observe that “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”