Classic Mark Steyn Quote
If you want a public culture that reeks of indestructible faith in its own righteousness, try Europe — especially when they’re talking about America: If you disagree with Eutopian wisdom, you must be an idiot. Obama and far too many Democrats have bought into this delusion, most thoroughly distilled in Thomas Frank’s book What’s The Matter With Kansas?, whose argument is that heartland voters are too dumb (i.e., “moronic muppets”) to vote for their own best interests.
Europeans did “vote for their own best interests” — i.e., cradle-to-grave welfare, 35 hour work-weeks, six weeks of paid vacation, etc — and as a result they now face a perfect storm of unsustainable entitlements, economic stagnation, and declining human capital that’s left them so demographically beholden to unassimilable levels of immigration that they’re being remorselessly Islamized with every passing day. We should thank God (if you’ll forgive the expression) that America’s loser gun-nuts don’t share the same sophisticated rational calculation of “their best interests” as Thomas Frank, Obama, too many Democrats and the European political establishment.
Related articles
- MARK STEYN: Democrats Should Let Sleeping Dogs Lie. “My point is that self-loathing cultural relat… (pjmedia.com)
Lawrence O’Donnell and Why Governments Can’t Create Jobs
***Don’t forget to subscribe to my blog so that you can get “The Quotable Obama” for free. Learn more here:
http://davidnordmark.com/the-quotable-obama/
***
In the video above I analyze an advertisement made for MSNBC news. In it MSNBC “Personality” Lawrence O’Donnell makes the case that of course government can create jobs, as government creates jobs all the time. All those crazy right wing politicians who claim governments can’t create jobs ignore the fact that, hey genius, the government created YOUR job. At least this is how Lawrence O’Donnell sees things.
The point that O’Donnell, and others of his ilk (I’m looking at you Paul Krugman) completely misses is that government has no money of its own. In order for it to create a government job, it must first take money away from the private sector (what I call wealth creating jobs in the video). The money it takes away in taxes is money that cannot then be used in the private sector to hire more workers, buy other products or services, or expand their business. Government “job creation” is thus always a zero sum game at best. It can only give with one hand by taking away with the other.
Does this mean that government jobs are then somehow not real jobs? Not in the least. Many jobs that government creates, such as policeman and fireman, are vitally important. However, these jobs are wealth supporting jobs, in that ideally they help true wealth creators do what they do best. As I point out in the video, my two entrepreneurs (Fred and Sam) are quite happy to pay some money in taxes in order to be protected from criminal activity and the threat of fire. When the government grows too onerous, however, the wealth creators are squeezed and unemployment is the result. A high unemployment rate is an indication that government has grown too large and needs to be paired back. Too many government jobs, paradoxically, wind up destroying real wealth and real jobs. This the point that Lawrence O’Donnell misses and why he is wrong.
For more information on this check this article posted by the CATO institutes Dan Mitchell. He goes into greater detail about how economies with large public sectors experience less prosperity.
This article by Gary Nolan makes the same case I do in the video, but he uses math to make his point, and you can’t argue with math, right?
And finally, the great John Stossel explores the difficulty he has in setting up a lemonade stand in New York. This is a beautiful example of government moving beyond its legitimate core functions (police and fireman, for example) into wealth destroying insanity (bureaucrats preventing kids from setting up lemonade stands are not helping anyone).
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2012/02/24/creators_oped
How A Busybody College Instructor Got Herself Banned From McDonald’s
I came across this article that I thought raised several issues. First, the story.
It seems that Chandler, Arizona resident Erin Carr Jordan was at her local McDonald’s with her kids when she took a closer look at the play space in the restaurant. To her surprise, she found it disgusting (and why wouldn’t it be that way? Kids were crawling all over it!) and subsequently complained to the manager. During ensuing visits she found the play space still didn’t meet her standards.
So, what did she do when faced with this potential bubonic plague of a threat to civilization?
- Did she simply decide to not patronize the offending McDonald’s and take her kids to a local park? I mean, there are no germs in a public park, right?
- Did she write a letter to the management, perhaps informing them why she no longer planned to patronize their establishment? Unlike government monopolies, such as the post office or the DMV (and even educational institutions, in some cases), private companies need business to survive and generally respond well to reasonable (key word there) complaints.
Of course not!
Instead, she actually had samples taken, which were then analyzed by a lab. The result? Horrors! All kinds of pathogens were found! She then went on a crusade, complaining to the manager, bothering other parents in the McDonald’s about her findings, and just made such a nuisance of herself that her local McDonald’s actually banned her from their restaurants. Who would have thought that was possible?
I think this story nicely illustrates some real differences in how conservative/libertarians view the world vs lefty progressive types. To wit:
- If you find something in a restaurant you don’t like, simply stop doing there? If you’re really gung ho, write a letter saying why you are no longer visiting the premises. Why go on a regulatory crusade?
- Isn’t she interested in finding out how many plagues can be linked back to McDonald’s playgrounds? I have a guess at this number – 0.
- Why isn’t she interested in the pathogen count in public playgrounds? Or at public libraries? Why pick on McDonald’s?
- For that matter, why not do a check for pathogens on kids themselves? Is she not aware how unhygienic they are? They pick their nose and eat it. They eat glue. They drink from dog bowls, for crying out loud. Maybe we should get “at the root causes” and mandate that all kids should be encased, bubble boy like, in plastic?
- Isn’t she slightly worried that if she gets her wish and some new regularity framework is set up, that many restaurants, including McDonald’s, might decide that having a play area is just not worth the bother?
As a conservative/libertarian type I accept that fact that the world is not perfect. However, I know that any attempts to fix that come with costs that must always be weighed. It seems to be that the Erin Carr Jordan’s of the world have their risk/cost meters seriously out of adjustment. What do you think the pathogen count would be if you did a count in her fridge?
What do you think? Would you be at all surprised if I told you that Erin Carr Jordan was a college instructor? Aren’t you kind of impressed that she was banned (I LOVE that part, actually, makes me want to buy a Big Mac in solidarity)? What do you think it reveals about the progressive mindset?
Related articles
- Dr. Erin Carr-Jordan, Mother of 4, Banned from AZ McDonald’s (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)
- Mom Gets Banned From McDonald’s For Wanting To Be Clean! (wycd.radio.com)
- Specialist Says that the Filth at McDonald’s Playgrounds Can Kill Your Child (cutie79.wordpress.com)
We don’t have to surrender to public-sector unions
This article by Neil Reynolds looks at the history of public sector unions and why they’re a problem. In my mind, I’ve come to the conclusion that in most cases public sector unions simply shouldn’t exist. They are fundamentally different from private sector unions for two reasons:
- Unlike a private company, the government has no incentive to keep costs down. It can’t go out of business. There is no bottom line for a government. It can agree to almost anything and simply raise taxes or add on more debt.
- Public union members are also voters. When a government gives rich contracts to public sector unions it is literally buying votes. This is a huge conflict of interest that is simply wrong.
All over the western world, public sector pay and benefits are far more lavish than their private sector counterparts. In order to bring things into line public sector wages and benefits should be tied to whatever the going rate is in the private sector. If we don’t want to wind up like Greece, I don’t see any other way. Here’s the article:
We don’t have to surrender to public-sector unions
