This good little piece below brings to the forefront, my long believed, firm view that liberals contribute virtually no intellectually heavy lifting when it comes to consequences; This piece illustrates some of those consequences.
-Telegraph
By Donald J. Boudreaux
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
My dad died on April 25. Adrian "Buddy" Boudreaux was only 73, but those years were very happy ones for him. That happiness came from Dad's natural good cheer and contentment; it did not come from money. Dad never had much money.
He dropped out of school in the sixth grade, but as an adult he earned his GED. When he married my late mother, at the age of 22, he was a bus driver in New Orleans. Dad soon left that job to work as a pipe fitter at Avondale Shipyards, which at the time was one of that city's largest employers.
The typical American who would learn of the financial resources now passing down to my three siblings and me would say that we have virtually no inheritance. That's true only financially. In fact, the inheritance that our parents left to us, while minuscule in terms of dollars, is enormous and valuable beyond measure. My meaning is best conveyed by these excerpts from a letter that I wrote to my dad when he retired from the shipyard in January 2001.
"A man's worth can be measured in many different ways. Most of these ways are foolish.
"Is a man's worth measured by his wealth? Hardly. History is littered with wealthy people who are scoundrels. I meet lots of wealthy people whom I detest -- whom I don't wish to be near or whom I pity because they are shallow.
"Is a man's worth measured by his power? Absolutely not. Hitler and Stalin and Mao had enormous power. But they are among the scummiest of history's scumbags. Powerful people are almost always detestable creeps.
"Is a man's worth measured by his education? No. Many people with advanced college degrees (and I know lots of them!) lack decency and generosity. Too many are crybabies, more childish than mature and more clever than wise.
"Too few men are truly great. Greatness comes from within and is often invisible to eyes unfamiliar with a great person. A man is great only if he is responsible; only if he is a loyal and loving husband and father and friend; only if he teaches his children and grandchildren properly, not only with words but by example; only if he is free of envy and spite and pettiness.
"You and Mom have taught your kids and grandkids many valuable lessons. In particular, I thank you for never once, in the 42 years that I've been blessed to know you and Mom, having shown envy of others. I thank you and Mom for teaching us to be decent and to judge others by their moral merit rather than by their worldly achievements.
"I remember how you took Paw [my paternal grandfather] into our small home after Maw died, and cared for him with tenderness and good humor. I remember how you did the same for Aunt Louise.
"I also remember how, a few years ago when you and Mom were visiting us in Virginia, an offensive former colleague of mine ridiculed a view you expressed about the economy. You took no offense at his remark. You just smiled, and said only, 'Well, that's how things look to me, but I'm not as educated as you are.' Your voice had no trace of insult or anger. You didn't back down from your view in the face of my colleague's obnoxious remark, but nor did you deny that he might be correct. By word and example, you (a shipyard worker) upstaged my colleague (a university professor) in both tolerance and good manners.
"I remember also one of the summers that I worked at the shipyard -- in an air-conditioned office! One day my duties took me out onto one of the platens [small construction sites] where you were working. It was mid-summer; the temperature was in the upper 90s. I saw you welding. When you saw me, you pulled back your welding mask and, smiling, yelled. 'How ya doin', son?!' You were happy to see me.
"I recall staring at you, because that was the first time that I saw just how incredibly hard you worked to support your family. You were wearing a thick denim shirt, soaked with sweat. I thought to myself, 'Geez. He does stuff like this every day!' I was impressed and humbled.
"I was also thankful. You've always done your duty as a husband and father. You are loving, kind and genuine. And you've never, as far I know, ever once thought of yourself as doing anything special. You just did what you knew to be right.
"You, Dad, are the greatest man I know."
Rest peacefully, my dear father.
Donald J. Boudreaux is someone to read.
"I've heard a few commentators suggest that, with his first Supreme Court nomination, President Obama will find it necessary to please the left-wing of his party.
These commentators miss the point. Obama is the left-wing of his party.
He was the most liberal member of the Senate and his presidency fully reflects his leftism. If anything, Obama is shrinking in office."
- Paul, Powerline
This piece was written by a character who frequents a blog that I read; he just may have a new job writing more stuff like this --that is if he wants to.
This is awesome!
Money Versus Wealth
One way to measure the “transformational” power of the Obama presidency is to consider the speed with which Democrats transformed from the steel-taloned deficit hawks of the Bush years, into a party very comfortable with trillion-dollar deficits, and a fifteen-trillion-plus projected national debt. Anyone old enough to remember the early Clinton years has seen this happen before, of course. As the shadow of the Obama deficits looms over the economy, we can expect to begin seeing the sort of breezy journalism we got in the Nineties, wondering exactly why deficits are so bad. The fact that liberals are willing to ask the question illustrates one of the fatal flaws in socialist economic policy: the confusion between money and wealth.
Money is easy to create. Obama has already stolen a trillion dollars of it from the future. All that was required was printing up a few more stacks of bills, and adding a few more zeroes to various federal balance sheets. Last night, like every other day of his presidency, Obama spoke about how much money he plans to “invest” in various government programs. Liberals in general, and the news media in particular, use the amount of money thrown at any given problem as the sole important method of measuring how much we “care” about it.
Wealth is a far more elusive, and important, part of the economy than money. Wealth is what people do with their money… and even more to the point, it’s what people could do with their money. Free people in a free economy create wealth through their choices. You can run down to the grocery store and spend ten dollars buying steak to cook for dinner tonight, or you could go to a restaurant and spend two or three times that much, having the steak expertly prepared for you. Sixty bucks might seem like a lot to spend on dinner… but how much would it cost you to venture forth into the wilderness and hunt your own dinner down, or raise your own cattle and slaughter them? Suppose you make twenty dollars per hour at your job. That grocery-store steak is worth half an hour of your time, and the fine dinner at at five-star steak house cost three hours of your income. Compared to the time and effort it would take you to hunt or butcher your own meat, even assuming you knew how - and were lucky enough to have a successful hunt tonight - it’s a bargain. You create wealth by giving your money to the grocer or restaurant for your dinner, and now they have money to invest or spend according to their needs and desires. Meanwhile, you also created wealth for your employer, because you were able to spend hours working at your day job, instead of fooling around in the brush with a bow and arrow, trying to bring down a deer.
Modern technology greatly amplifies wealth creation. You couldn’t possibly build yourself a computer or automobile from raw materials, no matter how much time you invested. You can’t perform surgery on yourself. The twenty dollars in your pocket represents vast wealth, because you can choose to spend it in so many different ways, and your employers chose to give it to you (after taxes, of course) because the hour you spent earning it was worth more than having a twenty-dollar bill sitting in their vaults. You can use that twenty dollars to buy things that the last Egyptian pharaoh could not have purchased with all the gold in his kingdom, or all the kingdoms of the world combined. The computer you’re using to read these words is vastly more powerful and easy to use than it would have been a decade ago, because the pursuit of profits drove computer and software companies to compete and produce better products, and their competition created wealth. You’re probably using high-speed Internet and a comfortable flat-screen monitor to read this, using a computer that can do a dozen other things at the same time, and if you wanted to share this essay with a friend, you could email a link in seconds.
The wealth built into that twenty dollar bill dissipates if you’re not allowed to choose how you spend it. How wealthy are you if the grocer takes your twenty bucks and tells you that you have to eat fish instead of steak… and you’re allergic to fish? How wealthy would you be if your employer paid you in company scrip, which could be spent only at the company store, on a limited selection of products the company sees fit to offer - at whatever price they decide to charge? Even though that scrip has value - you can buy stuff with it - it represents much less wealth, because you have fewer choices in how to spend it.
Socialism annihilates wealth. Government control of the economy destroys the value of the dollars circulating through its bloodstream. Every one of the trillion dollars Obama dumped on the American economy reduced the value of every dollar that was already here, because government stimulus bills create no wealth - they just force the economy to spend money in ways it didn’t want to. Not a single hour of productive labor is created when a big pile of deficit dollars is sucked out of the free market and expelled from Washington. Socialism creates the illusion of prosperity by forcing money to be spent in politically favored areas, then shining the media spotlight on where the money was spent… and hoping nobody notices all the choices that weren’t made, all the possibilities that were foreclosed, fading away in the darkness outside that spotlight. And deficit spending is ultimately the worst excess of socialism, because it destroys the wealth of the future, taking away their choices and options… draining the lifeblood from the America that could have been, in the arrogant knowledge that an aborted future does not have a voice to defend its interests, and the voters of today will never stumble across the corpses of murdered opportunities.
That is why deficit spending on Obama’s scale is so awful: because it takes a trillion dollars from the future without asking its permission, burns away a vast amount of the wealth that money represented, replaces it with a debt that can only grow worse with every passing year, and tries to convince the American people the whole transaction was a bargain.
- Doctor Zero
