Why You Can Only Eat the Rich Just So Long

 Nothing's simple save this: The need for mother's of invention

What happens in a democratic society when a majority of voters become dependent on a government job or a government subsidy for the essentials of their life? Today essentials include smart phone, high speed internet, cable or satellite TV, fast food, and gourmet coffee but that's another subject. Moving on, what's developed in other social democracies is massive debt because not only are a majority of voters dependent on support, half of all workers either work directly or indirectly for government. When government "stimulates" the economy that number goes up. All of this increases the basic economic engine's (government's) recursion. Government paying people to work, then collecting a minority of the payment in taxes then paying them again from those taxes but always in a downward spiral of income to expenses. The hope of course is the creation of more "true" jobs and a growing economy to offset some of the recursion. That's not happening or at least not fast enough. The speed of job creation would need to be rapid, indeed and the hope would be a lot of job creation would motivate people to work for private industry and the elimination of some of the recursion. Since that's not on any economic adviser's near horizon, it appears the United States of America is headed in the direction of France, Italy, Greece, and Spain. Which is just fine for most social democrats who have always wanted more social services, community health for all and economic equality for all. There is no need for an economic formula. Social truths are are true a-priori (by rule) and there's no need debating the a-posteriori realities (our economy can't currently support our spending requirements). Economics just don't matter when human lives and conditions are at stake. Core value beliefs not effected by any economic reality. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. And many ethical people are willing to go to their grave voting for and believing in such values. They are right by rule. Of course that's different from economic dependence on government but the one issue feeds the other. You don't need an absolute majority of people dependent on government as long as it's true by rule that we must spend whatever is necessary to help people. Thus the passing of the hurricane relief bill to spend billions we don't have. MOST citizens would borrow money to pay for the relief because the economic impact seems more theoretical than actual. We don't have the economic will to cut spending somewhere else to afford to do it. So unless our economy starts growing rather rapidly again (driven by a new technological boon no different than the rapid adoption of the internal combustion engine and a use for crude oil from a century ago) we're headed for insolvency. But that's no secret. The current promotion/solution to growing debt is to eat the rich, which is a common placard seen on the street by demonstrating true believers banging on drums and blowing whistles. This is also a revolutionary theme. Let's redistribute the wealth. I note that Gerard Depardieu is moving across the border from France to Belgium and applying for Russian citizenship as the French are now taking 75% of his total income to achieve the redistribution. Belgium will only take 25%. The recursion of collections will begin as more and more citizens who are taxed at higher and higher rates vote with their feet. It's also interesting to watch the effect of higher taxes on higher income. Some workers choose (or find themselves spending more than they earn normally) to work 60-80 hours a week and when they go into overtime begin to pay higher and higher tax rates the more they earn. Higher taxes to support social welfare help some and punish other non-rich people. But again, that's another subject.

Is there a point to this screed? No more so than that which is evident to most of us. There is a problem. But I do have a prediction. American voters have always been reasonably practical. As the economic policies of social democrats begin to cause more and more financial hardship for the country's balance of payments and as our credit rating declines, there will be a gradual shift toward more common sense economic values. Voters will hold politicians responsible for fiscal as well as social issues. But our economy is based on growth. Until a new paradigm (service economies are woeful when it comes to bringing in new true investment capital) emerges to drive economic growth, world wide recession likely will lead to some hard times which few of us are willing to accept. The downward spiral won't be arrested by spending cuts alone because there is recursion to those cuts as well. The recursion of collecting a percentage of taxes from government workers kicks the can down the road. The recursion of citizens with no jobs who pay no taxes but need food, shelter and housing is a more immediate problem, unless we're willing to watch people starve. We aren't. More government spending is required in either case and just cutting spending helps today but that alone won't bring about a thriving economy. Cut taxes? How can we afford to cut taxes when we can't pay our bills, some of which we earned by cutting taxes years ago to stimulate the economy? These aren't solutions, they're themes.

Nothing's simple. You can quote me on that. Luckily I'm not a politician who has to have simple answers.

Posited:

Our young people need to understand what actually drives our economy and encouraged to do everything they can do to help. They feel pretty good about protesting social ills, volunteering to feed the homeless and chasing dollars. Becoming doctors, lawyers, venture capitalists or teachers and bureaucrats. All well and good. But we badly need a new Steve Jobs or a Bill Gates (Thomas Edison, Henry Ford?) to give us the personal robot which will be demanded world wide. We need imaginative young people to develop new engines of power generation. To discover new sources of energy. To explore new worlds we only imagine today. We need to begin to produce something the world needs that we can export. To refine raw materials in a better way. To engineer a more elegant design. Social democrats say I am making their point. More government spending on better schools for all will bring us what we need. I think our teachers (who are quasi-governmental employees) could explain to our young people that until we reward practical, creative endeavor with meaningful value, indolence will thrive. Will government workers engender it in others even though they don't always practice it themselves? Some few do, of course. And I hope others start but realistically government isn't the solution. The current panacea of eating the rich is very temporary indeed. Market forces will realign pretty quickly to reduce those payments, ala Depardieu. After that "solution" what we badly need is hustle and initiative. If you are a teacher or a parent, teach that. Show that. And we need to start encouraging, hustling and inventing ways to reward others for their initiative. That's a good start. Where are you "new Steve?" Our future depends on you. 

What makes a photographer

I'm a gearhead and I like cameras and I take photos. I started with used and cheap cameras on ebay and over a period of four years I've moved on to used and expensive. This shot is from a Sony A850 full frame digital. It uses Minolta lenses and since it's a full 35mm frame digital camera, older film 35mm lenses take about the same picture they used to take when they were on a 35mm slr. It's also post processed a bit to sharpen it up and add some contrast drama. Not much but some. I've had the Sony about a month. Some cameras stay with me and others are used, then released back into the used stream. Right now I keep a Leica M8 with a handful of lenses, some 4/3 equipment, mostly Panasonic and some point and shoots. Over the next few days and weeks I'll be posting some more pictures from some more cameras on my photo blog, referenced below. Whether I'm a photographer or not, I'll leave up to you.

http://phislammacamera.blogspot.com/

Thanks George, both of you...

The die was cast 9/11. Our country, our citizens and our symbols (the trade center buildings) were attacked by an organized group of religious fanantics bent on randomly murdering as many innocent men, women and children as they possibly could to make a point. Jihad. Religious war. Our President took a vow and soon John Wayne's ghost inhabited George Bush, a Texan after all and the word from the grave was, "take the fight
to the enemy. It's not time to hunker down and wait for the next attack, George, it's time to establish a beach head in the middle east." And George did. And we did. And the predictions of house to house combat against the Republican guard lasting for months and years with untold sustained deaths was a fairy tale. I have friends who say there was no reason for it. Iraq was an innocent in the fight. Except Saddam Hussein offered a million dollars for all widows of any suicide bomber who killed an American. He offered safe shelter to anyone who promoted jihad. Terrorist cells were openly training "freedom fighters" who were trained to killed themselves and innocent men, women and children. Iraq offered safe haven, political and financial support and openly promoted terrorism and applauded their actions. The United States and Europe were their targets. The key word here is "were." So castigate him, if you will because George Bush listened to and channeled the Duke and boy, we attacked. Interestingly enough, the salutory effect of action was people like Muhamar Khadafi became a lot more friendly, real fast. Where terrorism flourished, it was now discouraged. Rebuilding Iraq took longer than defeating their army. Wonder why. The nah sayers and the dooms-dayers had their say. We lost the war. It will never end. The cost was too high. Then things turned around with the surge and things have gotten a lot better and continue to do so because we didn't cut and run and admit defeat. Duh. So Iraq is no longer news. Wonder why?

So what is the score today? Terrorism hasn't gotten worse. Attacks have decreased. There has been no other attack on the United States. Iraq is coming back as an ally of the United States and now has free elections. Our folks have met theirs and we are getting along. Bush was wrong? Nah. We lost the respect of European Socialists? Anybody in this country who thinks we're going to be liked for using our military muscle to take the fight to those who are plotting to kill us are begging the question. We don't need to be liked and if that's what we're seeking its time to bend over. We need to be respected by those who think we're weak or we're lazy or we're not resolved to protect our interests. That we're not committed to achieving a worthy goal. Anybody who planned to do what was done in New York and believed we'd stand by and wait for another attack miscalculated. They miscalculated badly. I am thankful George Bush stood up for this country and used our military to take the fight to the enemy and those who supported those fanatical enemies. Thank you George Bush. For my other friends who disagree, it's okay to not like Bush and make fun of him. Opinions are like elbows. But Bush didn't create terrorist cells. He did protect us and our interests by using our military might. If that bothers you, stay out of the military and gnash your teeth when you're upset. I'll drop the fictive power of the Duke now and refer to a real reactionary figure. George Smith Patton IV was one mean, blood-thristy son-of-a-bitch who belived in killing your enemy before they had a chance to kill you. The political correctness of that vision lives on only in one way. We today are free to complain about Patton and his ilk. George Patton trained killers so that the innocent could be aghast at his words and actions and live to talk about it openly. There are a few of us who still raise a drink to ole blood and guts. Patton wouldn't like George Bush much either. But it wouldn't be because of what he did to the middle east after 9/11. It would be because George Bush didn't suck every last drop of oil out of Iraqi soil and use it to pay all of our expenses.

Today's Exchange

Try to look at this from my point of view.
Photographers believe they can capture a bit of the style of life through their lens. You begin to wonder what's in a scene. A caption above might be " I always park on the sidewalk."
In this one we add the caption: "Going Home."
Finally here it's "Exchange." That's today's theme.


More later.

Stating an opinion

Ya gotta love "opinion polls." Political decisions and product placement and marketing are often swayed by "public opinion." I don't quibble with dish soap fragrance opinions. But should decisions vital to the future of our country be made based on public whim? In a democracy (a republic, whatever) where the vox populi are "in charge" shouldn't public opinion be valued? Shouldn't political decisions consider the will of the people? Perhaps it is an a priori truth. A good rule to follow for somebody who has to run a popularity contest to get elected and re-elected. Until you come down to the specifics of each issue. If decisions on important matters are swayed by simple public opinion, how valid are the opinions and or the polls when it comes down to matters the public has little or knowledge of and only a passing interest in finding out one way or another? Maybe their opinions are swayed by polls? Anyway, your phone rings and you hesitate to answer but pick it up anyway, which is almost always a bad idea. It's a polling service. At least it's not the police benevolent society having a ball. They have just a few short questions that'll take less than three minutes to answer. Surely you have three minutes to express your opinion on matters vital to our country? By mistake you say yes (maybe you're having a cocktail (2?-3?)).

Okay here we go. Here's question number one. "What do you think about the Elliot Jackson, Marcus Snowden matter?"

You're drawing a blank.

"Were you shocked?" "How shocked were you?" "On a level of one to five with five being 'very shocked' what would be your level of outrage?"

So you say "Never heard of either person. Don't know a thing about it."

Ah, then the brilliance of the whole endeavor surfaces. "Sir, it just doesn't matter (remember Meatballs?, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter). This is an 'opinion' poll. We want to know how you FEEL about things. The specifics of your level of knowledge are less important than the way you're leaning on the matter. Can you give me a number here between one and five, please?"

So there it is. Your chance to let the pols know how you feel. It gives me warm and fuzzy shivers. So am I positing that uneducated opinion(s) tend to be important only in popularity contests and beauty products and are a dangerous way to run a country? I beleive I am. But then, what do I know? But please, give me your opinion.

John McCain, Jack Kemp, Joe Lieberman, Colin Powell

Caught some of McCain's packaged speech clippings. Wants to go positive on America. Gonna win the war and return government to the people. Fairly non-controversial and it's got to drive the media daft. "Win the war? B.S. Can't be done. He's dodgey old. He can't tell the difference between Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein or El Quida from Hamas..." Truth is he does get confused regarding Sunnis and Shiites and Bathists but what's a Colin Powell for (hint, hint)? Of course compared to centuries past once we took the ground and captured or killed their army, uh, we "won." Then you ravaged, pillaged, captured and split. When your enemy started to rebuild, you visited again and knee capped them. Bad form though. Post WWII we have to rehabilitate the country to "win" now. 60 Minutes posits we have to bring every Iraqi involved in helping us to the US and give them 40 acres and a mule (freedom isn't free unless its subsidized). Of course, it does make you think twice about getting involved because the exponent for victims is exponential, which should be good because you don't want war, really but now and again if you don't fight for your right live in peace, you won't live in peace for very long.

Group think (polls, eh?) now is "shouldn't have gone into Iraq looking for WMD's, they didn't exist." Question is, how do we know they don't exist? How did we find out? Don't go in, they nuke New York, then common thinking is, "shoulda gone into Iraq and looked around, stupid not to." So going in gave us the knowledge we needed to protect ourselves. Sorry but sometimes you have break an egg to see if its a chick or a yolk. Later you only regret looking if you forget the need for information is paramount in war. And yes, war was declared on the United States and yes Saddam Hussein did sponsor terrorists. Different terrorists, you say? We should have waited until the bomb exploded, and THEN we'd have had a good reason? Please. Is the middle east a mess? Yes. Did we make it worse? Hardly. The Russians invaded Afghanistan and acted up. They deserved to be thrown out and uh, we helped provide the munitions (at least Charlie Wilson did) to do the job. Other than Abu Ghraib's mess we've done nothing to embarrass ourselves and we've done an awful lot to bring peace and freedom to Iraq. It's expensive. Those who have died, those who are related to those who have died know all too well how expensive. But I suspect if you left it up to the men and woman who have committed to making a difference in Iraq, and yes I'm talking about our military, I'd guess they'd want to stick it out. In fact, I'd be willing to leave it up to folks we have in Iraq. When they vote to come home, I'll listen. Some of my friends would scoff at that because they think everybody is out for themself. You have recognize that heroic man and woman still exist. People who are willing to do the dirty work because it needs to be done. Cutting and running now is convenient. A majority of troops would rather die than cut and run. Not popular? Doesn't surprise me.

But what's that got to do with McCain?

I had promised myself if Joe Lieberman, Colin Powell, Jack Kemp or (watch out, you may get your wish, eh?) John McCain ran for President, I'd support them. Now I've got to put up or shut up. Obama is bright and driven. Hillary is well connected and like it or not, Bubba did a good financial job and is a conservative cross-over Democrat and I like middle of the road pols. So you gotta believe you'll get more than a taste of Bill's ideas if Hillary takes over. But when its all said and done, McCain's paid his dues and deserves a shot.

Many heroes have a tendency to self destruct. Audie Murphy comes to mind. If anybody's got an excuse to be screwed up, its McCain. I read he's angry and can hold a grudge. Made some phone calls asking little folks to be fired from jobs when he didn't like the way they questioned him. He's got feet of clay. But he also gets mad when he thinks the people of the United States are being screwed over. Read Matt Taibi's piece in Rolling Stone on Hillary's pork projects. She and Bill will let people out of prison as a political favor. So would McCain? I don't think so. A man who is willing to stay on target to drop his bomb when a heat seeking missile is about to knock his wing off shows a tendency not to compromise.

So there you have it. Not surprising. I'm a boomer. Was in the Air Force. Liberal as a youth, conservative as soon as I had something to conserve (I always enjoyed Jack Kemp's quote when he asked "what about those people who don't have anything to conserve?" Probably wasn't original but it was spoken by a Republican, and it was the bully truth and right up Limbaugh's wahsoot, i.e. spare me the polemics, no matter what side they come from). So I love the underdog and I hate to do the expected so Obama rings true for me. But even though it's expected and a little boring, I am on McCain's train until his feet of clay turn into lead.

John McCain for President of the United States of America. Huzzah...