Rent Seekers Seek Rent Seekers

Rent seekers aka special interests seek a claim against tax payer monies. The rent seeker might want the monies in the form of direct assistance, tax payer funded subsidies, or want special conditions such as government regulation to protect their position within the market place which then taxes the consumer-tax payer in higher prices. Rent seekers have been known to want a combination of the afore mentioned.

The sly rent seeker lobbies for their claim and many, many times are successful. That is, politicos spending other peoples' money (tax payer money) are not shy in bestowing other people's money upon the rent seeker. However, other sly rent seeks exist as well. The exogenous rent seeker is lobbying for their particular claim. Hence rent seeker X receives their claim. Rent seeker Y receives their claim. Yet rent seeker X and rent seeker Y, in the final analysis, pay for each others claim. That is, if rent seekers X and Y represent firms, non-profits, or citizen groups, their particular claim must be paid by other firms, non-profits, citizen groups of which a subset is rent seekers.

Therefore the sly rent seeker in the form of the lobbiest believes success has been achieved when their claim is validated. They explain to the firm, non-profit or citizen group that they represent that success had been achieved. However the "success" is framed in a closed system argument. That is, it would be success IF no other rent seekers existed. Some one must pay for all the rent seeking activity including rent seekers themselves.

Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Frédéric Bastiat

It is High Tea Time at Schumer’s Extreme Tea and Flea Room

“Ya better say yer prayers ya flea-bitten varmint! I'm a-gonna blow ya to smithereenies!”
- Yosemite Sam

‘Schumer, who has been criticizing Republicans all day, said in a floor speech Friday
that conservatives were the flea controlling the dog, which he said in this
case is a federal government that could shut down at midnight.



“What we have here is a flea, wagging a tail, wagging a dog,” said Schumer, chairman of
the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

“The flea are the minority of House Republicans who are hard right, the tail is the House
Republican caucus, and the dog is the government,” Schumer explained. “That
flea is influencing what the dog does ... and it is sad.”

Schumer for more than a week has been arguing that Tea Party conservatives will be to blame
if there is a shutdown.

“When either party goes to the extreme they don’t do the right thing,” said Schumer.
“My experience is they lose politically, but much more importantly they do what
is wrong for the country substantively." ‘(1)

‘Sen. Chuck Schumer can't spin his way out of this gaffe.

The media-hungry liberal leader yesterday accidentally revealed the inner workings of the Democratic Party's "extreme" p.r. machine -- hurting budget negotiations as both parties brace for an April 8 government shutdown.’ (2)

Summary

Apparently when a flea drinks enough tea the yield is an extreme tea flea.

Notes:

(1)    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/154963-schumer-likens-house-conservatives-to-a-flea


(2)    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/knucklehead_chuck_CZpf1dHEUAC2e1r008Qy3J

Elitists

In political discourse you will see a reference to “elitists”. Generally the term elitists is used to designate the few somehow, someway enlighten individuals of the political, intellectual, or academic
classes who’s particular vision of society is somehow, some way more enlightened than the vision of others.

Some award the political term of “elitist” to Karl Rove. (1) However, Rove by no means was the first to refer to the label elitist. Milton Friedman referred to an “elite class” when discussing the emergence of the modern welfare state in his classic 1979 book Free to Choose. (2) Whereas
others argue the elitist label is merely anti-intellectual.  That is, people use the term in the positive
or negative. (3)

Is there a better definition, less political /more empirical, more thoroughly researched definition of “elitist”? Yes there is such an animal. Its most likely related to Thomas Sowell’s definition of
“special knowledge” as it appears in Sowell’s books A Conflict of Visions and Intellectuals and Society.

The term “special knowledge” as used by Sowell appears related to F.A. Hayek’s discussion of central planning and the inability of any one individual to have enough information to organize economic activity and associated outcomes.

F.A. Hayek’s discussion of decentralized knowledge trumping centralized knowledge is nicely summed up by Harold Demsetz as follows:

“…the historically important central puzzle of economics was to explain how independently acting people in an unplanned decentralized, private ownership economic system allocate their resources and, in particular, to explain how it is that the uses they seem to make of resources seem to be
well coordinated”.(4)

What is “special knowledge”?

An expert might be categorized as someone who is perceived to have acquired the most knowledge in one particular field of study such as geology or mathematics. Moreover, other participants within a particular field of study consider a particular person as an expert in the field of study. “Special knowledge” is when one leaves his/her particular field of expertise and acquires a self-designated position as an intellectual.

The self-designated and self-appointed intellectual designation is an attempt to transfer particular expert knowledge from an unrelated field to another field and instantaneously acquire “special knowledge” in a completely unrelated or mildly related field of study.

Special knowledge, the self-appointed intellectual, and political-economy?

Most notably, as pointed out by Rove, Friedman, and Sowell, the self-appointed intellectual , the elite as it were, want to comment and shape opinion specifically in the field of political-economy. For example, Paul Krugman trying to transfer his expertise in trade economics to political-economy commentary on society as a whole. Bill Gates trying to transfer his expertise in the field of computers to political-economy commentary on society as a whole. Barack Obama trying to transfer his expertise as a community organizer to political-economy commentary on society as a whole.

The once expert in a particular field, now a self-appointed intellectual in an unrelated field, has somehow, someway acquired “special knowledge” in the unrelated field. That is, the expert knowledge in a particular field becomes “special knowledge” in an unrelated field. Hence
“special knowledge” is merely notional propositions of the way things ought to be of a particular self-appointed intellectual with the premise being that an expert in one field is surely an expert in an additional field, that being most notably the political-economy.

Elites as the self-appointed intellectual?

Hence the definition of “elitist” as merely anti-intellectual misses the mark. It’s not that an elitist is anti-intellectual; it’s that an elitist is a self-appointed intellectual making political-economy
commentary on society as a whole through use of special knowledge which is in fact no knowledge. That is to say, we have a group of people, self-appointed people that have no expert knowledge in the field of political-economy, making notional statements which are in fact statements of “the way things ought to be”. That is, an elitist is a non-expert, making notional comments and putting forth
the notional propositions as fact, when the actual case is the notional propositions are merely their particular non-expert view of the way things ought to be and hence painting the world in one’s own self-image or self-vision.

(1)http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1031684/elites_elitists_and_rove_politics.html?cat=9

(2) Free to Choose, 1979, Milton Friedman, chapter four,
page 98

(3) http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/mboard.detail/fNav/71/What-does-the-term--elitist--rea---.html

(4) From Economic Man to Economic System, Harold Demsetz.

ObamaCare Slush Fund for Media Outlets? No Way! Way!

"Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) — a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money."

Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/06/washington-post-and-cbs-receiving-money-from-obamacare-slush-fund/#ixzz1IpYiu2Cr

“Expectations” a major variable in economics is merely a myth?

On Sunday 04/03/2011 edition of the “This Week” program crazy old uncle Paul Krugman, Noble prize wiener-whiner at larger, decided to rewrite economic theory in 20 seconds or less. You see, one of the major variables in economics, which is expectations, is merely a myth.

Which then begs the question: is expectations a myth or is the more likely case that crazy old uncle Paul is the myth?

It becomes a mighty sad case when a Noble prize winner in economics constantly, clearly, and repetitiously shows why he should have never won the prize in the first place.

The American Lung Association: A Billboard Jumble.

The following is from the Wall Street Journal “Political Diary” 03/31/2011:

Childish Behavior -- Kim Strassel

You know a lobby group has sunk to new lows when it resorts to using children to further a political agenda. So cast your eyes downward for a view of the American Lung Association.






The ALA recently posted billboard ads across the district of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton. The ads, in Michigan's 6th congressional district, show a young girl with a respirator mask over her face accompanied by the words: "Rep. Fred Upton, protect our kids' health. Don't weaken the Clean Air Act." At least one of the four billboards is near Mr. Upton's district office.


This attack on Mr. Upton, a Republican, stems from his efforts to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from going around Congress's back and unilaterally regulating greenhouse gases. If you are wondering what greenhouse gases have to do with kids' health, the answer is nothing. Groups like the ALA, allied with green outfits such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, peddle the myth that higher carbon dioxide concentrations will somehow result in more health conditions, though there is no real evidence in support of that view.


In its billboards, and in a letter to Mr. Upton, the group said its concern was that efforts to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would "undermine and weaken" the broader Clean Air Act, resulting in more pollution and conditions such as asthma. But as the ALA clearly knows, Republicans want to limit the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide, not any of its other powers. If anything, stopping the EPA from devoting enormous resources to the issue of greenhouse gases will free the agency to focus more of its efforts on its core mission of cutting back on real pollution.


The American Lung Association has found common cause with liberal groups who are in support of greenhouse gas restrictions. It has bought into global warming fears and supports an energy-restricted economy. And it isn't above using kids to make its point.


Those Darn Donations

Hence the American Lung Association has elected to use their contributors gifts to erect billboards that make unsupported statements. In other words, erect billboards with notional statements put forth as fact via donor contributions.

Yes, as has been well published and well documented, donations to non-profits don’t always go to the ideal the particular donors intended.

You donated for additional research? Sorry, billboards are on tap today. You donated for additional staffing to further research? Sorry, it’s a billboard thing. Donated money for additional state-of-the-art facilities. Sorry, you are trumped by the need for billboards.

Paradox

Upon further review, if the American Lung Association wants categorical risk management regarding air pollution of any sort, they surely want categorical risk management of all forms of pollution. Yes? Of course!

Wrong. You see, billboards are considered “pollution” as well. Really? Uh huh.

If one is going to make a non factual political statement, with the use of other peoples’ money, it fits the overall pattern to be as hypocritical as possible in the delivery of the message.


Billboard Pollution?

“Tomorrow is Earth Day, an apt moment to ponder the ways digital billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising create light pollution and squander energy. And while we’re on the subject, we might think about how our physical and mental health may suffer from these effects.” (1)

“It is time for Mendocino County to take stock of the ever-increasing number and size of ugly billboards that are destroying the wonderful views here in Mendocino County.” (2)

"Critics charge that the new signs, like the 500,000-plus old-style billboards dotting U.S. highways coast to coast, not only blight the landscape but represent private exploitation of roadways that the public paid for....The big new digital signs are kicking off a heated argument about safety...South Carolina Department of Transportation ordered removal of 45 trees because they were inside the 300-foot highway 'view window' the billboard lobby had urged the state to mandate...Indeed, at least 28 states have laws that can force cutting trees owned by the public on public land if they obscure drivers' clear view of billboards...How 'ungreen,' one wonders, can government policy get?" (3)

‘Scenic Pittsburgh is a new chapter of Scenic America, a nonprofit that grew from former First Lady Lady Bird Johnson's campaign to beautify America. Scenic America's website takes on billboards as "sky trash," "litter on a stick" and "the junk mail of the American highway." ‘ (4)


The Politico Messenger and the Message Media

The “American Lung Association”, in the abstract, is an entity that doesn’t think, discuss, or initiate action. The only thinking and decision making is made by the bureaucracy of the non-profit institution known as the American Lung Association.

The thinking and decision making comes from the hierarchy of the bureaucracy of the American Lung Association. Each individual within the hierarchy of the bureaucracy of the American Lung Association can surely exercise free speech. If the powers-that-be feel they need to become political then they should voice their concerns and get their message out as free speaking individuals. Each individual within the ALA should express their opinion.

However, when a non-profit takes other peoples’ money (donations) and makes a political-economy statement, a statement that in fact does not reflect all donors’ particular political-economy statements (each individual donor‘s statement) , then it merely becomes the political-economy of the bureaucracy of the non-profit. The message, the political-economy of the bureaucracy, is then re-associated with the abstract being known as the American Lung Association. That is, implicit to the message, the sub-group attempts to set forth the message as absolutely inclusive of the millions of donors, when in fact it’s a message of a particular sub-group.

What about the particular political-economy message media choice? Let us suppose for a moment that a bureaucracy is bold enough to spend donors’ money on their own particular brand of political-economy. Lets further assume the political-economy statement is X. Moreover, X is portrayed as negative. Lets state that Y is a sub-component of X. That is, if X is negative, one of X’s attributes is Y which is also negative.

The bureaucracy, being the rational message sender of its own political-economy message by use of donors‘ funds, chooses Y negative sub component of X to deliver X negative message. That is, is it rational to choose one pollution (billboards) to advertise your political-economy of air pollution? -Or- Is the zeal to send the message of a particular sub-group, by use of other people’s money (donors), so zealous that one sends the message by paradoxical means? Is the need to send the message so zealous that the sub-group never thinks through the paradox?

Notes:

(1) http://banbillboardblight.org/?p=4489

(2) http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org/?q=billboard-pollution

(3) http://www.planetizen.com/node/24603

(4) http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10318/1102988-53.stm

April Fool's Day: the left handed Hamburger?

Below is a link to the to the top one hundred April Fool's Day hoaxes of all time:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/aprilfool/P0/