Saturday, March 30, 2013
Chart of the Day #19
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.-- H. L. Mencken
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
What the Supreme Court Could Do for us.
If particular precedents have proven to be unworkable, they don't lead to predictable results, they're difficult to apply, that's one factor supporting reconsideration. --John Roberts
In the Wizer's post "Follow the Money", I pointed out that the gay rights advocacy people don't want the rights so much as the rewards they perceive are due them, simply by virtue of their civic unions.
Now it is time to address the real issue: Favorable treatment for married people. This is special rights accorded to married people. There is nothing in the constitution that addresses alimony, child support, insurance coverage for spouses, or the ever popular "married filing jointly". Why are married people given more rights than the unmarried? That is what is wrong with the law.
Okay, fine. The right thing to do now, it seems, is to discontinue any rights ascribed to marriage that would not otherwise covered under contract law. The beauty of such an approach is that people, all people, are free to enter into contracts with each other. It eliminates a big problem with the chief constitutional aspect of this initiative: that is, that there would be any laws that seek to assign rights to special interest groups. The measure would have the side benefit of causing people to be more responsible for the nature of their relationships. An employer, through its employment structure is free to extend additional benefits to spouses as they see fit, but the government would be prevented from extending "rights" to any special interest group...traditional or otherwise. Just simply end favorable treatment for married people.
This way it will prevent an endless parade of special interest groups wanting "rights" extended to them by virtue of one association or another. Freedom of association has long been a hallmark of our government and our constitution. But those associations should not be given free rein to carve out special rights of their own.
Since John Roberts has seen fit to rewrite an argument before, here's one where he could actually fix the real problem, instead of blandly weighing arguments from two wrong sides. That would be a nice precedent for this court to make.
In the Wizer's post "Follow the Money", I pointed out that the gay rights advocacy people don't want the rights so much as the rewards they perceive are due them, simply by virtue of their civic unions.
Now it is time to address the real issue: Favorable treatment for married people. This is special rights accorded to married people. There is nothing in the constitution that addresses alimony, child support, insurance coverage for spouses, or the ever popular "married filing jointly". Why are married people given more rights than the unmarried? That is what is wrong with the law.
Okay, fine. The right thing to do now, it seems, is to discontinue any rights ascribed to marriage that would not otherwise covered under contract law. The beauty of such an approach is that people, all people, are free to enter into contracts with each other. It eliminates a big problem with the chief constitutional aspect of this initiative: that is, that there would be any laws that seek to assign rights to special interest groups. The measure would have the side benefit of causing people to be more responsible for the nature of their relationships. An employer, through its employment structure is free to extend additional benefits to spouses as they see fit, but the government would be prevented from extending "rights" to any special interest group...traditional or otherwise. Just simply end favorable treatment for married people.
This way it will prevent an endless parade of special interest groups wanting "rights" extended to them by virtue of one association or another. Freedom of association has long been a hallmark of our government and our constitution. But those associations should not be given free rein to carve out special rights of their own.
Since John Roberts has seen fit to rewrite an argument before, here's one where he could actually fix the real problem, instead of blandly weighing arguments from two wrong sides. That would be a nice precedent for this court to make.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Navigating The Big Picture
Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine - the special pleading of selfish interests.
― Henry Hazlitt, Author of Economics in One Lesson
People make economic decisions every day. From signing a home mortgage on down to buying a candy bar. Economic choices are made by all of us, every day. Each choice is itself a simple one, and properly reasoned. Yet few stop to think of the impact of the choices they make on the overall economy. No, we are not missing anything, because we can't live our daily lives watching the big picture.
As it turns out, the big picture has a disproportionately larger effect on our lives now. For example, did you buy a house in 2006? I did, and because of the big picture, it was worth $35,000 less two years later. Would I have made the same transaction if I was aware of the big picture? No, I'm the Wizer, I would have done something different. You can be sure that I am a more diligent witness of the big picture since then.
What have I learned?
The news by nature gives conflicting viewpoints "equal time". You have to use an evolving filter to sort it out. You need a filter that progressively discredits wrong sources, and favor the ones that tend to be correct. Being discriminatory about the quality of information you get is what will save you. Over time, you will come to understand simple truths that can save you from ruin. One of the most important things I understand better now than before is that a person making economic choices has to develop a philosophy on economics. This would be an overarching thesis on the likely outcome of key decisions.
You can be an optimist or a pessimist, and it would only change slightly. You could be a republican or a democrat, and there might not be any difference at all in philosophy. The biggest danger is if you do not have an economic philosophy.
If there is no philosophy, where you merely try to react to current events, you are the target. People will take advantage of your willingness to abandon one strategy and move towards another. There are people positioned to profit from your many changes. Right now, there are people telling you that the stock market is a big opportunity, and people telling you there is an imminent collapse. What both sides want to do, really, is get you to do anything at all, because nobody profits until you do something, and they don't really care if it is the right thing for you. They are not in position to know if it's the right economic choice for you, so how can it even matter to them whether it is or not?
What you really have to do is imagine the world ten years from now. If you can figure that out, you have it made. Crystal ball, you say? Ouija board? No, but if you look in the right places, the biblical handwriting appears on the wall.
And when it does, that should become your philosophy, at least until the handwriting is no longer legible. You see, because the constant reallocations of economic funds, and the fact that someone is always profiting at your expense from the changes, it is best to develop a philosophy based on the larger trends, and let the nervous nellies pay for the short term changes.
So, what do you think will be there 10 years from now?
Do you think there will be deflation? Read Gary Shilling.
Do you think there will be inflation? Read/Listen to Jim Puplava.
Do you think there will be hyper-inflation? Read Peter Schiff.
Do you think there will be a great depression? Read Harry Dent.
Do you think the stock market will fall? Read Chris Martenson
Do you think the stock market is going to soar? Read Jim Cramer
In fact, read all of these people, if you haven't already, and then pick one economic philosophy. Just one. The magic in doing so is that you will be right in ten years. At least once. Which is more than you will be right if you don't pick one economic philosophy.
― Henry Hazlitt, Author of Economics in One Lesson
People make economic decisions every day. From signing a home mortgage on down to buying a candy bar. Economic choices are made by all of us, every day. Each choice is itself a simple one, and properly reasoned. Yet few stop to think of the impact of the choices they make on the overall economy. No, we are not missing anything, because we can't live our daily lives watching the big picture.
As it turns out, the big picture has a disproportionately larger effect on our lives now. For example, did you buy a house in 2006? I did, and because of the big picture, it was worth $35,000 less two years later. Would I have made the same transaction if I was aware of the big picture? No, I'm the Wizer, I would have done something different. You can be sure that I am a more diligent witness of the big picture since then.
What have I learned?
- That this "Big Picture" aka socioeconomics has an outsized effect on personal economics.
- That those who manipulate the money probably don't have your best interests at heart.
- That our learning what's really going on is not in the best interests of those manipulators.
- There are many theories of what's going on.
- Most of them are wrong.
- Some of them are intentional disinformation.
- We will be negatively impacted by our ignorance.
The news by nature gives conflicting viewpoints "equal time". You have to use an evolving filter to sort it out. You need a filter that progressively discredits wrong sources, and favor the ones that tend to be correct. Being discriminatory about the quality of information you get is what will save you. Over time, you will come to understand simple truths that can save you from ruin. One of the most important things I understand better now than before is that a person making economic choices has to develop a philosophy on economics. This would be an overarching thesis on the likely outcome of key decisions.
You can be an optimist or a pessimist, and it would only change slightly. You could be a republican or a democrat, and there might not be any difference at all in philosophy. The biggest danger is if you do not have an economic philosophy.
If there is no philosophy, where you merely try to react to current events, you are the target. People will take advantage of your willingness to abandon one strategy and move towards another. There are people positioned to profit from your many changes. Right now, there are people telling you that the stock market is a big opportunity, and people telling you there is an imminent collapse. What both sides want to do, really, is get you to do anything at all, because nobody profits until you do something, and they don't really care if it is the right thing for you. They are not in position to know if it's the right economic choice for you, so how can it even matter to them whether it is or not?
What you really have to do is imagine the world ten years from now. If you can figure that out, you have it made. Crystal ball, you say? Ouija board? No, but if you look in the right places, the biblical handwriting appears on the wall.
And when it does, that should become your philosophy, at least until the handwriting is no longer legible. You see, because the constant reallocations of economic funds, and the fact that someone is always profiting at your expense from the changes, it is best to develop a philosophy based on the larger trends, and let the nervous nellies pay for the short term changes.
So, what do you think will be there 10 years from now?
Do you think there will be deflation? Read Gary Shilling.
Do you think there will be inflation? Read/Listen to Jim Puplava.
Do you think there will be hyper-inflation? Read Peter Schiff.
Do you think there will be a great depression? Read Harry Dent.
Do you think the stock market will fall? Read Chris Martenson
Do you think the stock market is going to soar? Read Jim Cramer
In fact, read all of these people, if you haven't already, and then pick one economic philosophy. Just one. The magic in doing so is that you will be right in ten years. At least once. Which is more than you will be right if you don't pick one economic philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)