The Increasing Disconnect Between Private Entrepreneurs and Government Control Freaks

grope_dees

The FINANCIAL TIMES magazine is out yesterday with a brilliant article by by Edward Luce, “The great American disconnect.” Luce points out that while lawmakers and politicians everywhere are seeking to tax, regulate, control, classify, limit, and stifle every aspect of American life, entrepreneurs in the tech sector and industry are still “trying to make cars fly, abolish human mortality and nurture robots with feelings.”

Do these dreamers not realize that their dreams can never take flight under the Orwellian climate of central planning, socialism and near-Soviet-level control that governments have imposed on American society? As Luce writes, “America’s politics is remarkable for its resistance to new ideas.” “The gap between Washington’s dearth of creativity,” he continues “and the ferment beyond is widening.”

Wherever one encounters private-sector innovation, one encounters problem-solving and potential avenues for expansion of life’s possibilities. Wherever one encounters government, he encounters violence, intimidation and obsession with licensing, registration and control.

By Every Measure, Socialist Countries Pollute the Environment More than Free-Market Economies

Simon_Julian_x

It is an article of faith among trusters of government that free-market capitalism is hard on “the environment.” Yet by every measure–total pollution per-acre of land, pollution per-capita, pollution per unit of GDP, etc., socialist societies produce more pollution and greater destruction of the environment. The great economist Julian Simon had this to say:

Telling evidence is found in the economic comparison of North and South Korea, and of East and West Germany, and also of Taiwan and China. . . . The Communist countries use(d) much more energy and produce(d) much greater amounts of pollution both per person and per dollar of GNP. One might say that this is because the Communist countries were (are) poorer. But this relative poverty is itself part of the story: centrally controlled economies do less well economically, which is part of the reason they pollute more per unit of GNP, and even per capita.”

from Julian Simon’s “The Ultimate Resource 2” (1996), pages 306-07.

Current Federal Budget Spends Approximately the Budget of Montana On CO2 Climate-Change “Research”–While Spending Nothing On Research into Natural-Causes

banned_dees

The White House’s April 10, 2013 Press Release on “Understanding the Threat of Global Climate Change” States that the federal government is diverting roughly 2.7 BILLION dollars taken from American taxpayers into “research” on manmade climate change. This is roughly the annual budget of states like Montana.

This may explain why so many university scientists claim to support the theory of catastrophic man-made-CO2-driven climate change. As columnist Paul Driessen points out, the federal science research budget provides NOTHING for research into non-human-caused climate change.

Ted Cruz is Right: Galileo was the “Denier” of His Time and the Flat-Earthers of the Period were the “97 percent”

Ted Cruz

Government supremacists promoting the ‘manmade CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change and governments must be given more power’ alarmism tend to claim that “97 percent” of scientists agree with them, and tend to claim that the “3 percent” who disagree are “deniers” who should be likened to the “flat-earthers” of yesteryear.

There is a significant problem with this argument: the “flat earthers” of pre-Enlightenment Europe WERE THE 97 PERCENTERS OF THE PERIOD. And the great “Copernican” doubter Galileo could be counted in the “3 percent” (if you believe such percentages are accurate). Recently, government trusters have villified presidential candidate Ted Cruz for stating this obvious fact.

Ted Cruz may be wrong on many things. But he is right on this issue.

A Lesson in Unintended Consequences: “Anti-Terrorist” Laws Caused the Deaths of 150 People in European Jet Crash

lavatory

The best solution to social problems is almost always for politicians to do nothing. As the great economic thinker Julian Simon demonstrated in his books, humans will solve all their problems if they are left free. But policymakers and government trusters tend to insist on political “solutions.”

Now we learn that the deaths of 150 people in a recent plane crash in the European Alps was caused by a suicidal co-pilot who deliberately sent the plane into a downward spiral. Another pilot–locked outside the cockpit–tried desparately to get back to the controls and save the plane. Apparently, cockpit voice recordings indicate that the outside pilot tried to break through the door and may have been using an axe.

But the cockpit door was reinforced, pursuant to policies enacted by governments in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

A story authored by Simon Calder in today’s THE INDEPENDENT illustrates that the 149 passengers who died in the recent Lufthansa Flight 4U 9525 crash into the French Alps died because of “antiterrorist” legislation.

Philip Baum, the editor of Aviation Security International magazine, said: “From the moment it became apparent that the Germanwings flight had made a controlled descent… with no Mayday, one feared that either pilot suicide or a hijack was the cause. The ill-thought reinforced cockpit door has had catastrophic consequences.”

If cockpit doors had been built like they were before 9/11, those 150 people would still be alive.

High Taxes and Expansive Government Destroyed the Roman Empire

Herbert_Spencer

According to Herbert Spencer, “The Man Versus the State” (1982, page 60),

In Gaul, during the decline of the Roman Empire, “so numerous were the receivers in comparison with the payers, and so enourmous the weight of taxation, that the labourer broke down, the plains became deserts, and woods grew where the plough had been.” In like manner, when the French Revolution was approaching, the public burdens had become such, that many farms remained uncultivated and many were deserted: one-quarter of the soil was absoulutely lying waste; and in some provinces one-half was in heath.

Companies Cutting Employees’ Hours In Response to “Affordable Care Act”

chippedamericadees

We previously reported that the “Affordable Care Act” (“Obamacare”) was expected by the Congressional Budget Office to result in 1.5 to 2 percent fewer total hours worked by Americans.

Now a survey shows the damage to American productivity is even worse. A survey by the Society for Human Resource Management of 743 human resources professionals found that about 14 percent of businesses have reduced part-time hours and another 6 percent plan to do so. (five percent had already cut programs, operations or hours.) Employers are reducing hours to avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate, which requires companies to provide health insurance to all workers that work 30 or more hours a week.

The “Scariest Chart in the World”: After Decades of Government Anti-Saving Policies, Half of Americans Save Nothing

Lbutchery

The Business Insider is out with a chart showing that almost half of all Americans (47 %) save nothing and live paycheck to paycheck in response to decades of government policies that punish savers.

Chief among the government’s anti-saver policies is the Federal Reserve system, which has set interest rates artificially low for more than two decades. In the absence of such a system, banks would pay a decent (“natural”) rate of interest for holding people’s money. Instead, anyone who saves money in any modern American financial institution is an utter fool.

Secondarily, the U.S. government’s “Social Security” and Medicare scams incentivize people to change their natural behavior. In response to the elusive (and unsecured) promise of Social Security, Americans SAVE LESS, INVEST LESS, WORK FEWER YEARS, WORK LESS SAFE, AND RETIRE EARLIER.

If the U.S. had never imposed Social Security on American workers, the GDP of the country would be much higher, and American prosperity would be much greater. Americans would have probably cured cancer and other dreaded diseases, and would have built additional institutions to secure their comfort and happiness.

Socialist Talking Points About Libertarianism Eviscerated by Cato Institute

Milton Friedman

Remember Michael Moore’s movie “Capitalism: A Love Story”? Or the book by socialist Naomi Klein called “The Shock Doctrine”? Both relied on a claim (which probably originated in Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”) that the free-market philosophy of economist Milton Friedman was instrumental in the Chilean coup in 1973 which enthroned fascist Augusto Pinochet. Naomi Klein claims that Milton Friedman was an economic advisor to Pinochet.

In fact, as Cato Institute’s Johan Norberg pointed out in 2008, Milton Friedman never advised Pinochet and never accepted a penny from the Chilean regime. The entirety of Naomi Klein’s arguments were fabricated from a 6-day trip Friedman took to Chile in March 1975. Friedman did give public lectures, invited by a private foundation. He met with Pinochet for around 45 minutes, and wrote Pinochet a letter afterward, “arguing for a plan to end hyperinflation and liberalize the economy. That was the same kind of advice Friedman gave to communist dictatorships like the Soviet Union, China, and Yugoslavia, yet nobody would claim [Friedman] was a communist.” Norberg, “The Klein Doctrine,” Cato Institute Briefing Papers, No. 102, MMay 14, 2008.

But Naomi Klein–known in government-trusting circles as an intellectual figure–invested entire chapters in her book, “the Shock Doctrine” in a claim that Milton Friedman was an advisor to Pinochet and that Friedman’s market philosophy was responsible for the authoritarian rule of Pinochet. Such claims have been widely repeated, including by Michael Moore.

Urban Institute: Social Security Transfers Wealth From Poor to Rich

worship2_dees

A 2004 study by C. Eugene Steuerle, Adam Carasso and Lee Cohen of the Urban Institute, entitled “How Progressive is Social Security and Why?,” found that Social Security is a massive transfer from poor groups to rich Americans.

Although “Social Security was designed to redistribute income from those with higher lifetime earning to thos with lower lifetime earnings,” the results have been JUST THE OPPOSITE. “[L]ess-educated, lower-income, and nonwhite groups benefit little or not at all from redistribution” from Social Security.

In reality, the Social Security program redistributes incom from “shorter-lived groups (such as men and the less educated) to longer-lived groups (such as women and the better educated) through annuities whose lifetime value depends upon life expectency.”

Single women “(including many divorced women), . . . fare much more poorly than married women–a fact hidden in the data on all women.”