"Socialism would gather all power to the supreme party and party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of civil servants no longer servants, no longer civil." - Sir Winston Churchill

Thursday, February 26, 2009

1933 Pro-Inflation Propaganda Film

6 comments
This is a 10-minute propaganda film by the Roosevelt Administration advocating in favour of inflation. One often wonders how so many people have been led to believe something so vacuous. This may help you understand it. The sad reality is that the current government is, with the help of the media and academia, repeating the same sins.

WARNING: The following video is intended for intelligent audiences. Viewing this information without at least a marginal understanding of basic economics or an IQ above room temperature may prove hazardous to your political beliefs. Please do not view in the presence of leftist politicians, professors, journalists or government employees as they have been shown to become sexually aroused by economic inanity.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Why Elections Matter

3 comments
Well California, you’ve done it again. For years on end you’ve stacked your elected offices with Leftists of all stripes who have in turn filled every government agency with like-minded minions ever-ready to do the bidding of left-leaning special interests groups pushing the golden State further over the edge of reason and into the waiting arms of Mephistopheles. You have my permission to suffer the consequences of your deliberately crafted Faustian Deal.

Governor, Arnold Taxenegger (R) and State Senator Abel “The Enabler” Maldonado (R), joined Democrats in passing a budget that includes more than $70 billion in new taxes. Of course they assure us that it is mildly offset by spending cuts. From what I can tell, the total value of all spending cuts in the new budget would, if given to me in cash, allow me to purchase a Snickers Bar.

Far be it of me to say “I told you so” but….well, you know.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Why Do So Many Reject Free Enterprise?

1 comments
I'll turn to an old master for this one:



"One can hardly expect people either to like an extended order (free enterprise system) that runs counter to some of their strongest instincts, or readily to understand that it brings them the material comforts they also want. The order is even “unnatural” in the common meaning of not conforming to man’s biological endowments. Much of the good that man does in the extended order is thus not due to his being naturally good; yet it is foolish to deprecate civilisation as artificial for this reason. It is artificial only in the sense in which most of our values, our language, our art and our very reason are artificial; they are not genetically embedded in our biological structures. In another sense, however the extended order is perfectly natural; in the sense that it has itself, like similar biological phenomena, evolved naturally in the course of natural selection." [Parenthesis mine] – F.A. Hayek, Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Painful Lessons of Economics

13 comments
In every major event these days we are inevitably greeted with a plethora of books rushed into publication, and a few re-released in “updated” form, heralding the supposed knowledge and foresight of our esteemed intellectuals and commentators. Many haughtily present a “See!?! I told you so” attitude when they were in fact, about as prescient as Wyle E. Coyote after falling into one of his own traps.


So it should come as no surprise that the most prolific sector of the economy at present is in books heralding the death of “laissez faire capitalism” as a result of the current market meltdown. After-the-fact rationalizations aside, this problem was predicted long before the first signs of impending doom materialized. Those predictions came not from otherworldly mystics glancing into a crystal ball. They emanated from the minds of the defenders of “laissez faire capitalism.” I won’t delineate them here but the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are among those who, as early as 1999, issued the well-worn caveats in the face of foolhardy government polices. Derided as Cassandra mavens at the time yet we would be so much the better had we listened. After all, I believe Cassandra turned out to be right as well.


No one was willing to listen when warned that interference with the market mechanism would alter the functions of the system in ways contrary to its natural character. The market works on the basis of laws as important as the physical laws of the universe and when you introduce burdensome regulations, quixotic government policies, confiscatory taxation, ad nauseum you violate those laws and are forced to deal with the consequences thereof. Prices, profits and losses are integral facets of the market system which exist to relay signals to us all of how we should invest our resources. Once you attempt to regulate prices and/or insure against loses, you permanently obscure those signals and the market if it is to survive must react, not on the basis of legitimate data, but on the basis of distortions over which the players have no control and even less reliable information.


Now the politicians react as politicians are expected, by pointing the finger of blame at anything and everything but public policy. And they are trying ever so desperately to convince the public that the cure lies in even more government policy. In essence attempting to “fix” the problem using the very thing that caused it: socialism/statism. This isn’t a flu wherein we can treat it with a milder form of the virus. Socialism is a cancer. And like all cancers, it must be excised now before it irreparably afflicts the entire organism.


Laissez faire capitalism to balme? Laissez faire capitalism was not allowed onto the playing field. Like Wyle E Coyote, the statists among us set traps to ensnare the market, and they find themselves yet again, caught in their own device. And they have the nerve to look surprised.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Senator Tom Coburn (R) Blasts Stimulus Bill

4 comments
This is a must-see video clip from CSPAN of the Senate floor debate on the “Stimulus Bill” wherein Senator Tom Coburn (R) details the unconstitutionality of the Bill. Coburn is no late-comer to this issue as he also opposed previous similar measures under Bush. This is unfortunately an unedited CSPAN clip. I've adjusted it so that the clip opens to Coburn's remarks.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?

2 comments
Please excuse the language of this post. Now considering the subject matter you’ll find it ironic that I am apologizing upfront for some of the rather harsh language that follows, but hey! My mother may be watching.Tough guys!! The kind who are gentleman enough to hold a door open for a woman and man enough to break the nose of the silly sod who crosses her. Those guys who were once staples of major motion pictures: Sean Connery, Humphrey Boggart, John Wayne, to name a few. Today however men are vilified for being tough. We are expected to be sensitive, to open-up and to get in touch with our inner child. In short, men have been completely feminized. This is the once proud culture that prompted singer Paula Cole to ask, “Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?

Well, take heart Paula, for there are still a few notable exceptions, including yours truly.

Clint Eastwood comes to mind. During a recent interview with Letterman, Eastwood wondered aloud when America became “a pu**y society.” And famed Cleveland Browns fullback, Jim Brown recently laid into Leftists in a January interview with Esquire Magazine noting, “A liberal is arrogant enough to think he can do you a half-assed favour. He is superior enough to think he can give you something that you don’t deserve. A liberal will cut off your leg so he can hand you a crutch.” Yes, these are among the few remaining public Tough Guys. But why are there so few?

As far as I can tell, we're being eclipsed by the Tough Girls. I know many women who admit that while the love the fact that men are not always boorish, coarse and just plain gross, they miss real men. So failing to find them in sufficient quantity, these Girls are starting to take up the slack. And I’m not talking about the flannel-shirt-wearing, butch-cut sporting, comfortable shoes, type Girls. No, I’m talking real women who want an America filled with real men.

Ann Coulter is one example. One of my favourite Tough Girl commentators and authors whose current book Guilty is causing a state of extreme apoplexy on the political Left. She dares criticise the “victicrat” mentality that so permeates American culture. What a horribly mean Girl!! And don't get me started on Michelle Malkin. I could write volumes on these Girls.

But there’s an up-and-coming Tough Girl who is poised to become the veritable Joan of Ark of modern America. Her name: Pia Varma. This young, fiery, passionate Los Angeles native is making waves in West Coast political circles that will soon be cresting on the Potomac. She’s fighting to bust the balls of the current GOP leadership and force the nancy-boys on the Left, to cry “uncle!”. Pia recently launched PiaVarma.com coupled with the LaissezFaireLounge.com and I have it on good authority that you are in for a wild and wicked ride. With the intellectual verve of Ayn Rand and the tough-as-nails attitude of Margaret Thatcher, Varma will be a force to be reckoned with.

There may not be many Tough Guys left out there but these Tough Girls and their ilk (and the list is growing) will listen with sensitivity as you open-up and when the moment is right, they’ll find your inner child and kick its little ass.

Here’s to the Tough Girls.

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Care to Test Your Knowledge of the Great Depression?

4 comments
You have 20 minutes to answer 25 questions covering one of the pivotal moments in US history. Dont worry if you answer incorrectly, just enjoy the ride.

Powered By ProProfs: Create A Quiz

Friday, February 06, 2009

The American Illusion of Capitalism

8 comments

"He who desires or attempts to reform the government of a state... must at least retain the semblance of the old forms, so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though they are in fact entirely different from the old ones." - Nicolo Machiavelli


Americans love to tout the power of American capitalism whether as a blessing or a malediction. To the Left, capitalism is faulted for all that ails you, hence the New Deal, the War on Poverty, the Great Society and similar such schemes are means of saving the people from the ravages of laissez faire capitalism. To the Right, capitalism is under constant assault from Socialists/Statists. The sad truth is both are wrong and in many ways for the exact same reasons.


The main problem lies in the term itself. For the word “capitalism” like “capitalist” says nothing of ones views on matters of political economy. The assumption common to those blessed only with “conventional wisdom” to borrow a phrase from Lord Keynes, is that “capitalism” is somehow opposed to “socialism”; that it epitomizes the “laissez faire” order. If this is true, “capitalists” would naturally be inclined towards the “free enterprise system”, the “extended order” (Friedrich Hayek), or the “liberal order of the economy” (Gunnar Myrdal).


The evidence suggests that “capitalism” is in no way antithetical to Socialism. In fact, many Socialists throughout history have been entrepreneurs and industrialists and quite successfully at that. These are the men and women who have financed the permeation of Socialism the world over, notwithstanding the fact that they have usually been the first targets of the Socialists once coming to power. Churchill once derided this tendency as “feeding the crocodile in hopes of getting eaten last.” But I digress. The confusion occurs I believe because of a general ignorance of political science which leads many to the erroneous assumption that all Socialism is Communism and therefore all Socialists are opposed to “capitalism.” Fact is, most Socialsits favour some degree of private enterprise. What they object to is the free and unfettered market system. In other words, they oppose Hayek’s “extended order” and Mydral’s “liberal order of the economy.” Consider if you will the vestiges of a market order which existed under Germany’s Zwangswirtschaft Socialism, Italy’s Fascism, Great Britain’s Fabianism or America’s New Deal.


In the US, so-called “capitalists” have been the chief proponents of Socialists or statists policies since at least the 1930’s. Many US corporations and entrepreneurs, always quick to don the banner of “free enterprise” when convenient, have done more to usher the US along the path of planned economy than any Leftist political activist would ever have attempted. Each beseeches the government for protection from competition both domestic and international. Each demands laws which mandate the use of its products or services but always “in the public interest.” Each seeks special privileges under colour of law. Whatever term you use to describe it, this is not “capitalism.” I choose to call it what it really is, “mercantilism.” That damnable system so prevalent in Adam Smith’s day which prompted him to inquire as to the nature and cause of the wealth of nations. And, yes, that same system which John Maynard Keynes, resurrected in the 20th century. It’s an easy mistake of course. Mercantilism has the appearance of capitalism but in reality it is a system of “every man for himself, at the expense of his neighbour.”


Perhaps Americans need accept the fact that they long ago lost any traces of a free enterprise system. America doesn’t have to protect some nebulous conception of “capitalism” she has only to abandon “mercantilism” and make a hasty return to the “free enterprise” system.


Frederic Bastiat said it best, “the fight we face is not with the committed Socialist, rather it is with those who do not realize they are Socialists.”

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Johnny Rocco - The George Soros of 1948

1 comments

Environmentalism vs Humanity

3 comments
We have long been subjected to the sanctimonious palaver of the world’s environmental crusaders regarding Global Warming. But what we never witness is the true cost of these ideologically-driven movements in human terms.


Window repairman arrested for practicing "economic stimulus"

5 comments

“Times were so tough for Redlands window repairman Timothy Carl Klenke, police say, that he decided to take proactive measures. So he armed himself with a slingshot and began cruising around the city, shattering at least five windows and car windshields as he went.” – David Kelly, Los Angeles Times (see full article here)


It’s really funny to me how life tends to come full circle and often in the strangest ways.


While speaking with friends last night, one of them mentioned a discussion she had with an individual who insisted that government spending is the most efficient way to stimulate an economy. Naturally we drifted towards Fréderic Bastiat’s “Parable of the Broken Window” wherein he makes the case that breaking windows to stimulate economic activity is a fallacy common to simple minds in general. Yet this well thought out argument from 1848 was laid to rest when statist governments, including that of the US, adopted Keynesian economics as the default standard.


So coming across this article this morning of poor Mr. Klenke who decided to put this fallacy into practice for himself, I thought for a moment it has to be a joke. This man should not be punished for breaking the law. He is merely practicing Economic Stimulus on par with the boys and girls in Washington.


When will Americans come to the understanding that one should not give the government the power to do anything that the individual does not posses the right to do on his own. So if “breaking windows” is illegal for Timothy Carl Klenke, it must by right be illegal for the government. Or maybe I’m missing something.

Monday, February 02, 2009

The GOP Rejects Obama’s “Porkulus” Bill. So what?

3 comments
I find it rather difficult to feel appreciative of the GOP’s tortured decision to oppose Obama’s “stimulus” Bill. Ungrateful you say? Nothing of the sort.


Republicans are sent to office by voters who expect them to uphold certain principles and philosophical views irrespective of the demands of political expediency. Therefore it should never have been necessary for the constituents and commentators to demand that their Congressional representatives do that very thing. It was their job to resist the advance of Socialism. So why should they get special praise for being forced to do their duty?


This is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy ends at the voting booth. Voters are expected to be informed and candidates expected to be honest with their views so that once the vote is cast, the electorate may rest assured that their representatives will uphold the principles on which they campaigned. Those principles must stand always in opposition to Socialism. In the words of James Madison, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”


I will no sooner praise the GOP for rejecting this Bill than I would praise a bird for spreading its wings and flying.