by on

This video has been getting a lot of attention today. Since I’ve been discussing the reasons for the Tea Party a lot lately, I thought I’d address it.

Much is made of the fact that the Tea Party members shown here are apparently unaware of the fact that their taxes are at present slightly lower.

Well, the obvious response must first point out that if anybody at this event did give a reasonable discourse on, for example, Ricardian Equivalence, it wouldn’t make this video, because of its makers’ stated agenda. Secondly, it must be pointed out he interviewed so few people that it’s hard to call it a significant sample. Lastly, most people become flustered when asked to speak on camera, and tend to babble a little. So, the bias of the piece makes it rather difficult to have any faith that we are getting a real representation of the Tea Party.

That isn’t to say that the video is worthless–the search for completely unbiased reporting is in any case, I think, quixotic. The bits that document the rehearsed performances and speeches are pretty effective in showing them to be rather silly. (As are similar things at Left-wing rallies, I’ll bet.) I found Lord Monckton’s little rallying cry about Fox News anchors to be fairly Orwellian.

Overall, I’d say it’s a useful piece of footage to some extent, but by no means should people go judging the Tea Party by it.

    by on

    I must seem like a regular “Buchanan Brigade” member, as this is my third post about him in eight days. Nevertheless, his new article about the Tea Party is very interesting, and serves as an effective complement to John Nolte’s attempt to explain the Tea Party that I discussed the other day.

    I think Buchanan has sort of articulated what Nolte left unsaid in his article that made it seem a tad vague to me. Like much of Buchanan’s work, it’s all very Spenglerian. Perhaps the Tea Party movement is animated by issues other than just obvious economic ones. After all, rarely do people get so stirred up over economic issues. (They don’t call it “the dismal science” for nothing.)

    Then again, like I’ve said repeatedly, it could be Ricardian Equivalence at work.

    by on

    John Nolte at Big Hollywood tries to explain what the Tea Party is all about:

    “The Tea Party movement isn’t about “us,” it’s about something more important than us; it’s about this place we call America. And no bribe in the form of any kind of personal tax cut or government handout will buy us off when it comes to protecting this country.

    You can cut our taxes to zero — hell, you can gift us with millions in union bribes and make-work jobs — but for as long as this socialist rampage rampages on, I and every member of the Tea Party will be back, right here fighting you every inch of the way and counting down the days until November of 2010 and 2012.”

    So, is Nolte saying that it isn’t about taxes at all? If so, why hold the protests on Tax Day? It’s about the government having too much power, is it? If so, it seems strange they’ve only noticed that lately. The Libertarians have been complaining about Socialism and the increasing power of the government for decades, but only in the last year has a giant, attention-getting National movement sprung up around it, is what his argument implies. I don’t follow.

    I still say Ricardian Equivalence is at least part of the reason they’re out there.

    by on

    A lot of people in the media are puzzled about why the Tea Partiers are mad about taxes when taxes are actually very low at present.

    The answer is Ricardian Equivalence: The government did actually lower taxes; but they also increased spending, so at some point in the future, they must raise taxes to compensate.

    by on

    For quite some time–perhaps his whole career–Patrick Buchanan has been saying that World War II, despite its reputation as a Just war, was not the “Good War” it is made out to be, and, more controversially, that it was the result primarily of Britain’s blunders. He summed his case in his book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War“. 

    Of particular interest to Buchanan is Churchill, who he thinks is vastly overrated as a statesman and as a man. To hear Buchanan tell it, Churchill’s mistakes helped to cause World War II. Even in his latest column, he makes sure to take a jab at Churchill.

    I’m really of two minds about Buchanan; on the one hand, he is a total economic isolationist. I think this is a huge mistake. He tends to be too puritanical in his views on culture. He also supports the flying of the Confederate Flag, and, most bizarrely, supports the farcical “War on Drugs”. (The only American war he does support, it seems.)

    And frankly, I’m not at all convinced that his ideas about war in general, and World War II in particular, are actually correct. The Nazis seem to have imagined themselves to be inherently superior to all other people. With an attitude like that, surely they were bound to attack America eventually, no matter what.

    And yet, for all that, I can’t help but applaud the man for even examining this question. So many people who claim to oppose war in principle are willing to admit that World War II was worth fighting because, in that case–and seemingly just that one remarkable case, never to be again–the enemy was so indescribably evil that it must be defeated at once. (That they were evil is certain; that there have subsequently never been others as evil is not.) Buchanan is no pacifist, but he recognizes that if he’s going to make anything like a sound case against “going abroad in search of monsters to destroy“, he has to address the prevailing understanding that the only thing the Allies did wrong was not destroy Hitler and Nazi Germany sooner.

    by on

    “Ron Paul: Barack Obama is Not a Socialist.“

    He says: “In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,”

    I’m not sure what definition Paul is using here; but I think Socialism is so broad it’s hard to say for sure that Obama isn’t one. Obama may secretly wish to have the State take ownership of all the factors of production but he hasn’t done it yet, though, so we can’t call him a Socialist on that basis. That said, I’m pretty sure Obama does believe that the income which accrues to private firms and individuals must sometimes be redistributed in the interest of the “greater good” or, more technically, to “maximize social welfare.”

    Obama is probably a market socialist of some sort. This is not a terribly unusual position for a U.S. politician; in fact, Paul is probably one of the few politicians who doesn’t fall into this category. Of course, none of them would ever dare describe themselves as such–generally, when they’re advancing Socialist/redistributionist ideas, politicians tend to use the language of the Bible. (Hence Obama’s frequent use of the phrase: “I am my brother’s keeper.”)

    One huge mistake people make is to act like Obama is the first guy in U.S. history to ever advocate redistributing wealth for what he thinks is “the greater good”. He’s not close to it. Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive corporate regulator type. FDR implemented Social Security. Lyndon Johnson had his Socialist “Great Society”, a term which ought to give any individualist a fright.

     Republicans cheerfully point this stuff out to show how the Democratic Party is all secretly a bunch of Socialists. But here’s a little something they might want to think on: What’s more radical than market Socialism? Non-market Socialism! That’s where the market isn’t even involved in determining prices. Who imposed price
    controls in the United States? Republican President Richard M. Nixon.

    Back to Ron Paul for a minute: He says: “[Obama’s] a corporatist,”  and “[He takes] care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

    That sounds like something Michael Moore would say. And it’s incorrect. I think he must be thinking of George W. Bush. But it leads nicely into my point about how Republican economic Socialism works.

    When Republicans redistribute the wealth for the “Greater Good”, it generally involves giving it to either corporations or particular kinds of Churches, rather than other entities–individuals, non-profits, etc. They are particularly fond of paying money to corporations that make weapons, or, in one infamous instance, secret mercenary corporations.

    Some may debate whether this practice is technically Socialism or technically Fascism. In my view, Fascism is nothing more than a particularly militaristic brand of Socialism, so it makes little difference. The point is that both sides are redistributing wealth in order to serve society as a whole.

    I’ve quoted him before, and I’ll quote him here:

    “If we allow that Socialism (in the ethical, not the economic, sense) is that world-feeling which seeks to carry out its own views on behalf of all, then we are all without exception, willingly or no, wittingly or no, Socialists…. All world-improvers are Socialists.”–Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West.

    To which I would add only that if you already have a Socialist “ethic”, and you become a powerful politician who can influence aspects of the economy, it is virtually impossible not to become an “economic” Socialist as well.

    What bothers me about the quote from Paul is that he’s poking around the edges of a very deep insight into the truth of how the American political parties really act, whatever they may claim they believe. But he has somehow gotten things completely backwards.

    by on

    Yes.

    It’s an issue that is currently being debated in California. To me, it’s hilarious that we’re still discussing this at all. Of course it should be legal. It’s ridiculous that there’s even a debate about it. Anyone over the age of 18 ought to be allowed walk into a store and buy as much as they can afford in any state in the U.S.

    Now, let me clarify that I happen to think using marijuana, or any drug, is stupid. But so is drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. So, the only intellectually honest way to oppose legalizing marijuana is to also support the criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. (Though, as we should have learned, that’s unenforceable.) Otherwise, it’s just senseless support of whatever the random laws happen to be at present. If someone wants to poison himself by putting such substances in his body, how can we stop him?

    Now, you might say that there are negative effects to third-parties as a result of people using marijuana. (What economists call “negative externalities”.) Yes, that’s true. But, again, that also is the case with alcohol and tobacco. Those are regulated substances. We as a society seem to have decided that we are willing to accept a certain number of deaths of innocent bystanders from drunk driving in exchange for being able to drink alcohol legally.

    Some complain that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that will lead people to try harder drugs like cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Yeah, probably. So legalize those, too. Yes, some people will end up getting addicted to them and having their lives ruined. However, I suspect that once the thrill of doing something illegal is gone, a lot of the interest will fade and drug use will go down.

    Furthermore, it’s impossible to prevent people from getting addicted to all sorts of weird stuff. People sniff glue, paint and who knows what else. People lick toads to get cool hallucinations. In other words, there is no way to stop this sort of thing from going on, so don’t waste your time on it. All it does is give people who aren’t willing to obey the law a source of revenue; while squandering the law-abiding citizen’s money on a “drug war” that cannot be won.

    by on

    Apparently, President Obama gave a 17-minute answer in response to the question: “In the economy (sic) times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care, because it — we are over-taxed as it is?”

    First of all, I should point out that it’s sort of a moot point; obviously, Obama does think it’s wise, or else he wouldn’t have done it.

    Secondly, Obama did basically answer the question; in that he said what the problems the bill addressed were. In so doing, he essentially laid out for the listeners to decide whether it was wise or not.

    Thirdly, it is very difficult to assess what “over-taxed” means. Is it an economically measureable phenomenon? Is it “over-taxed” in the sense that the government gets less revenue with higher tax rates, as Arthur Laffer thought? Or over-taxed in the sense of taxes that make people move to other countries to keep more of their money, hence strangling innovation? Either way, it’s hard to say if we’re over-taxed or not.

    On the other hand, if we’re talking about “over-taxed” as a moral issue (because some say it is not only inefficient but immoral for the government to tax at high rates), then the situation is utterly irresolvable, because–and I suspect this is the case–Obama and his questioner have fundamentally different moral outlooks on this issue.

    Lastly, I’m pretty sure what Obama was trying to say without actually saying it was: “Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the debt and deficit. This is going to happen no matter what. If you think you’re over-taxed now, well…”