This has already made the rounds a bit, as it’s a week or so old. But still worth posting.
Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses….When a politician promises that his policies will increase the supply of some desirable goods or services, the question to be asked is: At the cost of less of what other goods and services? ~Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics
For a long time I viewed economics as an impenetrable subject. (I also thought it was boring, though I don’t know how I could know that AND find it impenetrable.) One can’t get away from the topic of economics, and the fact is no matter what a person’s level of understanding is, they probably have an opinion on it. A strong opinion. We’re fed strong opinions (and promises) from politicians and entertainment and news and just about any other source of media we consume. We’re promised that a vote for X will change Y about our economy. At some point I figured it would be a good idea to get a grasp on the basics of economics.
Enter Thomas Sowell’s aptly titled book, Basic Economics. Though not light reading, it’s very accessible and written for the lay person to understand. It’s also long measuring in at 654 pages, but very organized and thorough beginning with an answer to the most simple question :What is economics?
Although the word “economics” suggests money to some people, for a society as a whole money is just an artificial device to get real things done. Otherwise, the government could make us all rich by simply printing more money. It is not money but the volume of goods and services which determines whether a county is poverty stricken of prosperous.
At a time in our county’s history where the solution to economic problems has been trying to “stimulate” the economy through “quantitative easing”–the latest version of which being simply printing more money– learning, or relearning, the basics isn’t a bad idea. Sowell points out that economics is about the management and allocation of resources from one area to another, not simply about money. In the end a study of economics for the average person should be about helping make better informed decisions when the promises start flying.
I’ll be writing a series in coming months, mostly for my own benefit, as a way to help internalize what I’m working through and maybe help someone else see that the basics aren’t so daunting at all.
I hope this report is completely mistaken. If not, it’s another example of the cancer of totalitarian secularism.
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.
Given the media’s thoroughly botched and incompetent coverage of the Boston manhunt, why should we give credence to the same media’s interpretation of their motives? Especially when the bomber’s own words, and words of their family, explicitly state that Islam was the motivator?
The world is upside down when Islamic terrorists can fly planes into buildings and it results in it being taboo to speak ill of Islam. But when people want to follow the Constitution they’re labeled extremists.
While reading about proposed gun control in NY, I read about the state not allowing people on Psychotropic drugs to buy guns. Those sound big and scary, but if you take Zoloft to reduce anxiety, or a sleeping pill, or even some anti-inflammatory medications, or even BENADRYL, then the state says you’re too mentally unsound to own a firearm. You can still drive a car, mind you, but no guns.
Which prompts the question: Are they going to make Police Departments fire all officers on those drugs?
My guess is no, because this is all politics. If they do not, it’s evidence that this is a political ploy to remove guns from law abiding citizens.
A Stomach virus has made the rounds in our house the last week. Nothing like wallowing on the couch in agony to interrupt the blogging.
On to the links!
There are drawbacks to social media, but one of the major benefits is how it can expose stories that in the past might not have made it through the media gatekeepers.
Case in Point: The Kermit Gosnell baby murders. Why wasn’t this front page news, with every detail picked through and covered like Newtown, Trayvon Martin, or even Jeffry Dahlmer?
Oh right, abortion doctors get a pass, I guess.
During senate hearings on gay marriage social media was saturated with red equal symbols and vocal lefties screaming for equality. When children in Newtown where gunned down, Facebook exploded for weeks in anger and rage and screams for gun control. But when hundreds of babies (and one woman) are butchered at the hands of a sick abortion doctor….crickets.
Think I’m over reacting? Go take a look at the pictures of dead babies in the trash, feet in jars, and the backs of their necks cut open, their spinal cords severed. Hear the stories of babies screaming as they are killed. Then get back to me.
I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention.
Yes. She really, really, really said that. As Robert VerBruggen dryly responded:
Makes sense. Similarly, national gun-policy people do not cover local crime in places like Aurora or Newtown.
Manuel Martinez, who fled communist Cuba, testified in Salem, Oregon before a committee of Senators on gun control.
Dan Sandini at Daylight Disinfectant writes:
Mr. Martinez escaped the brutal Communist regime in Cuba in 1954. His testimony included how citizens under Castro were first disarmed by legislation similar to that being shepherded along by Gun-Grabber in Chief Floyd Prozanski. Defenseless, many Cuban Citizens were later summarily slaughtered.
It’s the same in every county where oppression has arisen. Disarming the public opens the door to oppression. The issue is not hunting, or even self defense per se. An armed populace is intended to keep the Government from ever becoming tyrannical. Mr. Martinez recounts how the Cuban people lost their freedom:
In 1957 a Revolution … individuals … malicious individuals, masquerading as Democrats, revolutionaries, established a regime … a dictatorial regime … in my nation. Called Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, and whatever other named -ism you want to put on it. The reason why it was done was to take away the guns from the People. The right of the People to wear guns. That is a God-given Right. It’s not given by anybody. It’s not given by any group. It’s the same thing as freedom, which is a God-given Right. And no one, absolutely no one, has the authority to take it away. To cease to defend the Second Amendment, and my God-given Right of freedom, will cease only with my death.
Here’s the video of his testimony.
On March 23, my colleague Mark Finkelstein noted how MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry considers the unborn child a “thing” which takes a “lot of money” to “turn into a human,” costing thousands of dollars to care for each year of his/her life. Now it appears that Harris-Perry thinks that, after they’re born, children fundamentally belong to the state.
Narrating a new MSNBC “Lean Forward” spot, the Tulane professor laments that we in America “haven’t had a very collective notion that these are our children.” “[W]e have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to their communities,” Harris-Perry argued.
Parents? Family? Bah! Society will raise these small humans you have incubated. The Government thanks you for your contribution.
Ideas have consequences, and they interact with other ideas. Among those fighting for prominence in our society today are: 1) Private citizens shouldn’t have access to weapons, 2) Marriage isn’t anything in particular except as the state defines, 3) Your children belong to the society, not you or your family, 4) The state will educate these children as it sees fit, 5) Government should be as big as possible, 6) It’s up to the government to save us from ourselves through the banning of sodas that are too large, because the people cannot be trusted….
….except in raising your kids, of course.
It’s not unexpected that those who are most vocal about gun control rely on guns for their own safety.
Piers Morgan, the resident gun control advocate on CNN, protects his own personal property with signs warning that it is guarded by “Armed Response Security Systems,” according to a new investigation by self-described “guerrilla journalist” James O’Keefe.
I watched the trailer for this new video by Project Veritas, and much of it has O’Keefe asking employees of film production companies if they would sign a petition to remove all guns from movies.
O’Keefe also approached other companies, such as Robert DeNiro’s Tribeca Films, and got a few signatures but mostly was rejected.