Economic Results, Economic Processes and Political Judgments of Economic Processes

'Perhaps the greatest achievement of market economies is in economizing on the amount of knowledge needed to produce a given economic result. That is also their greatest political vulnerability. The public can get the economic benefits of such systems by judging results without understanding processes. But in their political behavior, the public must judge processes - including economic processes of which they may be ignorant or misinformed. Public misunderstandings can lead not only to misinterpretations of economic benefit as harm, but to actual harm resulting from policies designed to “correct” perceived problems. Once the process is underway, every perceived problem - whatever its reality or origin - calls for political solution, and these “solutions” tend to create a never-ending supply of new problems to be “solved”.'
-Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, p.69



http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Decisions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465037380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353411092&sr=1-1&keywords=knowledge+and+decisions+by+thomas+sowell

Politico action: “self-interest in a self-interest”? -Or- for those with a political agenda: “greed in a greed”?

Consider voluntary mutual self-interest at the point of exchange. Imagine, if you will, the very point in time at which the dynamic equilibrium is reached where, mutually and voluntarily, two parties reach exchange as both parties perceive value.

If one introduces to the above mutual exchange an exogenous item known as politicos through the mechanism of government generating market distortion through tax, subsidy, regulation and/or the reduction or removal of the freedom to choose, the result is reduced/diminished utility [satisfaction]. That is, the dynamic equilibrium reached at the point of exchange becomes much less economically efficient.

Is too much attention paid to, and the considering thereof, the forces that result in reduced efficiency at the point of exchange, and too little attention paid to the politics of self-interest? Set aside the economic forces for a moment. Is the collective action proposed by the politico merely “self-interest in a self-interest”? -Or- for those with a political agenda: “greed in a greed”?

If one acknowledges the politically introduced forces causing economic inefficiency at the point of exchange, is one in essence viewing the individualistic idea of self-interest being superimposed upon another self-interest? Stated alternatively, we have collective action through the mechanism of government advertised as supposedly for the benefit of the many yet the collective action is initiated through the appeal to the self-interest of the individuals making up the recipient group of the collective action. That is, the action phase of the collective proposal is delivered via the appeal to the self-interest of the individuals supposedly benefiting from the collective action.

Viewing the concept outlined above from another angle, the collective action in effect, politically, creates another set of individualist self-interests. That is to say, collective action or collectivism, when sold by the politico, in the main, is depicted as action for the benefit of the many. However, in essence, the “action phase” in and of itself, that supposedly is collectivist in nature, is really politically sold as individualistic in nature, as the action phase is a self-interest in a self interest.

Hence we find that a collective action which finds its roots in the altruistic view of redistribution to the many, sold to the many by appealing to each individuals self-interest that make up the many. That each individuals self-interest within the many are sold on their having a self-interest in a self-interest.

Returning to voluntary mutual self-interest at the point of exchange, the two parties to the exchange are enjoined by a third party which is the politico who is the self appointed surrogate for the "many". The politico proposes that an exogenous group has a self-interest in the self-interest occurring at exchange between the two parties. The politico frames the exercise as the third party benefiting from a collective action yet appeals to each individuals self-interest within the many. That is, the politico puts forth the notion that the many that supposedly benefit from the collective action should benefit as the many have a self-interest in the self-interest  occurring at exchange between the two parties.

The odd item is that the self-interest occurring at exchange between the two parties is depicted as greed and/or generating excessive benefits to the two parties and/or an exchange that the many should benefit from not just the two parties. Yet greed, the participation by the many in supposed excess benefit is simultaneously sold by the politico to the greed of the individuals making up the many [recipient class]. That somehow, someway, the many have a self interest in a self interest or greed in a greed.

Therefore the billboard advertises self-interest as your noble interest as defined by the politico, whereas greed is that other guy's ignoble self-interest. Yet the action phase of the advertisement is not selling the supposed beneficial outcome of a collective action, the warm and fuzzy benefits to the collective if you will; the action phase is selling you on your supposed self-interest in a self interest or greed in a greed.
 

Providing a Public Good or a Public Bad?

Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute published a very insightful essay recently regarding “hatred” in politics and hatred among politicos entitled The Systematic Organization of Hatreds:

“In view of the foregoing, we are well advised to consider that whenever we seek to move a type of decision-making from private life to the realm of politics and government, we are very likely moving it from a world in which hatred is incidental and avoidable to a world in which hatred is central and inescapable. Because a government imposes one rule, one outcome, one state of affairs on everyone subject to its rule, the hatreds that go into the making of that outcome become generalized and infused throughout the entire society. Thus, what economists label a “public good” is often, in the most substantive way, a “public bad.” Even if a person does not share any of the component hatreds that politic actors express and deploy, no one can avoid living in a politicized world fashioned in such large part by the organized expression of hatred. It is, therefore, small wonder that some of us view the entire apparatus of politics and government as the living embodiment of evil.”

The link to the entire essay appears below:


http://blog.independent.org/2012/05/05/the-systematic-organization-of-hatreds/

Barney Frank on ObamaCare 04/15/2012: A Political Mistake

“You think Obama overinterpreted his mandate with health care?

 The problem with health care is this: Health care is enormously important to people. When you tell them that you’re going to extend health care to people who don’t now have it, they don’t see how you can do that without hurting them. So I think he underestimated, as did Clinton, the sensitivity of people to what they see as an effort to make them share the health care with poor people. I think we paid a terrible price for health care. I would not have pushed it as hard. As a matter of fact, after Scott Brown won, I suggested going back. I would have started with financial reform but certainly not health care.”

- In Conversation: Barney Frank, by Jason Zengerle, nymag.com, 04/15/2012 http://nymag.com/news/features/barney-frank-2012-4/

Obama’s Kansas Speech: Fairness, Pinocchio, and Pig Judging

"The Pinocchio Test"

"The president does not need to lard his case with such suspect data. There are few independent tax analysts who have much good to say about the Bush tax cuts. But it is difficult for Obama to justify blaming those tax cuts for being mostly responsible for today’s slow job growth, especially when he wants to retain a good chunk of those tax cuts.

To bolster his case about unfairness, the president is also relying on a suspect statistic about billionaires paying as little as one percent in taxes. Even if true, it is a clearly a rare event. Moreover, it is certainly surprising the White House would rely on such a dubious, unverified source for a major presidential address". - Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 12/07/2011


"Moreover, it is certainly surprising the White House would rely on such a dubious, unverified source for a major presidential address".


Really? Its surprising? Whenever a politico debates "fairness" it has to be a notional argument as its rather apparent: fair is what you are doing and the other guy is not doing -or- fair is where you go to get your pig judged.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-kansas-speech-some-suspect-facts/2011/12/06/gIQAUU45aO_blog.html

Class Warfare Politics: upon further review, poverty is the best policy

Each time class warfare politics raises its ugly head in regards to taxes, the rich are vilified and the vilification is used to argue for an increase tax on the so called “rich“. The argument put forth by politicos is the general and usual notional argument with concepts such as “fair”, “just”, “fair share” and so on. Purely political notional concepts that only have absolutely no meaning except in the context the politico presents e.g. fair is merely what you are doing and the other guy is not doing. That is to say, its an argument with no arguments. Vilification and notional concepts do not make for empirical underpinnings of any policy be it public or private.

Moreover, when the dust clouds of class warfare politics settle, everyone ends up paying more taxes. Stated alternatively, if one climbs on the magical bus of class warfare to tax the rich, at some point one has their very own class warfare bus ticket punched and ends up thrown under the bus of higher taxes. Odd huh?!?

Its not really that odd at all. You see, in a system of “some people” politicos want/need more money to spend. Why? The conduit of taxpayer dollars must increase at an increasing rate allowing the politico to use such funds for political constituency building exercises. Special interests and dependency constituencies [recipient class] are built with taxpayer money. The existing taxpayer-dollar-funded-constituencies, as well as any newly proposed constituency building targets, require vast amounts of taxpayer dollars flowing into the sphere of the politico. The flow must increase at an increasing rate in order for the politico to “grow their constituency”.


“Here it may suffice to observe that, on the theories of the social philosophers to whom I have referred, we should get a new maxim of judicious living: Poverty is the best policy. If you get wealth, you will have to support other people; if you do not get wealth, it will be the duty of other people to support you“. - W.G. Sumner (1)


Therefore, the politico promoted class warfare argument purposely plays James and Jane Goodfellow for saps. It sounds great as the politico weaves and frames the argument that you can have some other group of people pay for some crisis or problem. The politico is going to save you from the expense of solving a problem by merely making someone else pay for the problem.

The question one must ask oneself is: the centuries upon centuries of basically the exact same politico promoted class warfare argument has done exactly “what” to solve any and all problems? The politico wants you to judge them by their intentions and not their results. Exactly what results do we have presently? Do we have a tax problem or a spending problem? The politico wants the answer to be that we have a tax problem as they want more tax dollars to “grow their constituency”. The politico must direct the problem away from the spending side of the equation as decreases in spending means the collapse of existing political constituencies built and dependent on taxpayer dollars and disallows the acquisition of newly proposed constituency building targets.

“The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you’re rich.” - P.J. O’Rourke

Notes:

(1) On a New Philosophy: That  Poverty is the Best Policy, William Graham Sumner, 1883

　

　

Politicos Purposely Frame Arguments

'President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have led increasingly successful efforts to pit Americans against one another through the politics of hate and envy. Attacking CEO salaries, the president -- last year during his Midwest tour -- said, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

Let's look at CEO salaries, but before doing so, let's look at other salary disparities between those at the bottom and those at the top. According to Forbes' Celebrity 100 list for 2010, Oprah Winfrey earned $290 million. Even if her makeup person or cameraman earned $100,000, she earned thousands of times more than that. Is that fair? Among other celebrities earning hundreds or thousands of times more than the people who work with them are Tyler Perry ($130 million), Jerry Bruckheimer ($113 million), Lady Gaga ($90 million) and Howard Stern ($76 million). According to Forbes, the top 10 celebrities, excluding athletes, earned an average salary of a little more than $100 million in 2010.

According to The Wall Street Journal Survey of CEO Compensation (November 2010), Gregory Maffei, CEO of Liberty Media, earned $87 million, Oracle's Lawrence Ellison ($68 million) and rounding out the top 10 CEOs was McKesson's John Hammergren, earning $24 million. It turns out that the top 10 CEOs have an average salary of $43 million, which pales in comparison with America's top 10 celebrities, who earn an average salary of $100 million.

When you recognize that celebrities earn salaries that are some multiples of CEO salaries, you have to ask: Why is it that rich CEOs are demonized and not celebrities? A clue might be found if you asked: Who's doing the demonizing? It turns out that the demonizing is led by politicians and leftists with the help of the news media, and like sheep, the public often goes along.' - Walter E. Williams

Link to the entire essay Pitting Us Against Each Other by Walter E.. Williams appears below:

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/10/19/pitting_us_against_each_other

“Occupy”: For, Against, Not Sure, and the opportunity to act the part

The phenomena of “occupy” is by no means new. The generally considered positions (especially for survey/polling) regarding an issue such as "occupy" are: for, against, not sure. However, the phenomena "occupy" allows a grand opportunity to point out a fourth type of  position.

A fourth position emerges many times regarding an issue, and the fourth position doesn’t receive much attention. The “occupy” phenomena is allowing for clear identification of the fourth position: above a position-position.

The above a position-position avoids any root central issues, adds absolutely no insight, and is merely the self indulgent opportunity to act the part of the highly educated tutor of issues. It is a one episode play with a self centered plot. The self appointed actor in this one act play purposely takes on character attributes of the highly astute instructor of issues.

In the final analysis the above a position-position is merely a one act self centered play with its central theme being please-see-me as educated and astute.

Take note how many times you can identify the above a position-position .