Forbes Contributor John Goodman Uses "Reactionary" Like A Marxist

John Goodman, here:

"[T]he topic du jour on the left these days is inequality. By inequality they mean inequality of income. And they want government to do something about it. ... [W]hy are intellectuals on the left so obsessed with money inequality instead of the inequality of life’s blessings that people value much more? Certainly in their own lives they don’t act as though money is the most important value. They’re all writers and professors when they could have earned a lot more by getting a law degree or an MBA. I believe the answer is that they are reactionaries. They’re living in the past."

Well, when else would the topic du jour be du jour if not "these days", hm? And if advocates of classical liberalism like Goodman aren't reactionaries by his own definition, I don't know who is:

"Throughout the entire 20th century, what did the left consider its intellectual rival? Classical liberalism. That was the political philosophy of our founding fathers. It was classical liberalism that eliminated slavery from the civilized world, gave us women’s suffrage, and extended economic and political freedom to people all over the globe. The contrast between these two worldviews could not be more stark. The classical liberals believed the state should be the servant of free men. The 20th century left believed that men should serve the state. The results are in. The 20th century was the century of economic instability, depression and war. The 19th century was the century of price stability, economic growth and relative international peace. The 20th century was the century of dictatorship and genocide on an unimaginable scale ― with 125 million people killed by their own governments! The 19th century was a century of liberation and increasing personal freedom."

The problem with our side in these discussions is that we continue to accept the redefinition of the categories foisted upon us by a victorious left. It was the Marxists who successfully made "reactionary" into a dirty word, despite attempts like Paul Elmer More's in the early 20th century to steal that weapon from the Marxist arsenal aimed against us. What the continued use of the term "reactionary" in the perjorative sense by the right shows is that the right, for all its vindication by experience, evinces a shared world view with the left which is mistaken, and because it is mistaken is impotent in face of the challenges facing the West.

The hostile pose of the present toward the past means it can never really accept anything from it, and perhaps more to the point can and will therefore be deceived by the promise of the future. As long as people believe that human nature can be changed for the better, that its progress is inevitable, and that arrangements to check it are no longer necessary, they will no doubt face as they have before a future brotherhood of man as fraught with fratricide as any past we have ever experienced. Worldviews are not imposed from above, they spring from the inner conception of the self, and unfortunately for us, the prevailing inner conception remains servile, not free. If we cannot throw off this illusion of the present, we are doomed to be ruled by others instead of by ourselves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Look over the whole creation, and you shall see, that the bond or cement, that holds together all the parts of this great and glorious fabrick, is gratitude."

-- Robert South

Perhaps The Most Important Argument Against Consumption Taxes

Perhaps the most important argument against consumption taxes is Murray Rothbard's critique of them here, noting their time-preference prejudice:

"The major argument for replacing an income by a consumption tax is that savings would no longer be taxed. A consumption tax, its advocates assert, would tax consumption and not savings. The fact that this argument is generally advanced by free-market economists, in our day mainly by the supply-siders, strikes one immediately as rather peculiar. For individuals on the free market, after all, each decide their own allocation of income to consumption or to savings. This proportion of consumption to savings, as Austrian economics teaches us, is determined by each individual's rate of time preference, the degree by which he prefers present to future goods. For each person is continually allocating his income between consumption now, as against saving to invest in goods that will bring an income in the future. And each person decides the allocation on the basis of his time preference. To say, therefore, that only consumption should be taxed and not savings is to challenge the voluntary preferences and choices of individuals on the free market, and to say that they are saving far too little and consuming too much, and therefore that taxes on savings should be removed and all the burdens placed on present as compared to future consumption. But to do that is to challenge free-market expressions of time preference, and to advocate government coercion to forcibly alter the expression of those preferences, so as to coerce a higher saving-to-consumption ratio than desired by free individuals."

Rothbard goes on to ascribe this prejudice to "Calvinism", which may be entertaining to the libertarian who is interested in wine, women and song now and has a devil may care attitude about present frugality as a defense against want later. But this assumes there is no moral difference between savings and consumption, which there certainly is when the penniless old man turns up on your doorstep, hat in hand. The libertarian has his own time preference prejudice, were he to admit it, which life teaches us has serious consequences, more often than not.

Be that as it may, it is important to recognize that standard measurements of economic activity in the United States have for some time shown, in something like the following formulation, that "70% of GDP consists in consumer spending", and were it not for schemes like Social Security and Medicare there would be far more ringing of the bell going on at the front. This is quite a remarkable fact in a supposedly Calvinist civilization, a fact which argues for the moral superiority of savings over consumption because despite our better natures we in reality live otherwise. This suggests that we still ought to do everything we can to encourage the former and punish the latter, for the simple reason which the observation of human nature teaches. We are mixtures of good and evil, but unfortunately too often it turns out to be a bad mixture.

The ancient Greeks, among other things, notably taught us "nothing too much", by which we may infer that the preponderance of present spendthrifts demonstrates individual and social excess which ought to be remedied by tax policy encouraging the increase of savers. To right the ship would mean achieving a better balance between the two, and to Rothbard's main point, which is that under a consumption tax savings would inevitably be taxed in the long run anyway just as consumption is in the present because that is what savings becomes, we therefore ought to have no compunction about taxing savings in the end. That is what the death tax accomplishes, the final message to an excess of savings.

In the present context this recommends taxation of consumption in some form to encourage marginally less of it, better mechanisms of rewarding savings of which we have too little, and a death tax which approximates the same level as a consumption tax would operate at. This means that draconian schemes of estate confiscation by the government at death are in principle unjust because as consumption taxes we would never think of imposing similar levies on the living.

Unless, of course, we subscribe to The New Republic.

Methodism Remains A Grandmother Of Bolshevism

Jewish Lutheran Atheist

Mark Tooley says as much here for The American Spectator:

Methodism, rather than stepping back to reflect on its 30 year initially successful but ultimately failed Prohibition crusade, instead accelerated its political activism. The Methodism Building became the headquarters of America's Religious Left in Washington, D.C., housing radicals of every cause especially from the 1960s onward. It still clung to an uncompromising perfectionism that insisted evil could be banished, and the New Jerusalem established, with the passage of just a few more laws.

Of course, presidents and congressmen no longer "tremble and gobble" before Methodism and its lobbyists, who are largely ignored. Banning handguns, even after 40 years of endorsement by Methodism, will never happen. But maybe other uncompromising idealists and utopians, who believe human nature can be transformed at the stroke of a pen, will heed the lessons of Methodism and Prohibition. 

China's Boom is a Debt Boom, Misallocated to Real Estate

It's the same as it ever was.

This time, just like most times everywhere, cheap money in China has been massively misallocated to real estate.

Gwynne Dyer (who isn't especially alarmed about Iran) for The Japan Times, here:

People in the West want to believe that China's economy will go on growing fast because the fragile recovery in Western economies depends on it. Twenty years of 10 percent-plus annual growth have made China the engine of the world economy, even though most Chinese remain poor. But the engine is fuelled by cheap credit, and most of that cheap money, as usual, has gone into real estate.

Is there such a thing as a good commie?

Good commies would invite the rural hordes to live in all that new, mostly unoccupied, real estate.

Human nature being what it is, I wouldn't count on it. Revolution is more likely.

Don't Expect Overmuch: Human Nature is a Mixture of Good and Evil

"You are not however to expect, a perfect form of government, any more than to meet with perfection in man."

-- Brutus to the New Yorkers, 15 Nov. 1787

'The US Must Force Open Foreign Markets Or Protect Its Own'

So says Peter Morici of The University of Maryland here:

[G]lobal competition, communications technologies and essentially unchecked immigration have hammered down wages and winnowed opportunities in once decent paying occupations—for example, ordinary line work in manufacturing, middle management and sales, and writing for a daily newspaper.

Sending more Americans to college is not the answer—degrees in the liberal arts are simply not as valuable today as 25 years ago, and many students are not suited to engineering and other technical disciplines. The workforce is well overstocked with business school graduates. The problem is not too few educated Americans but too few good jobs for most of them to do. ...

Heavier taxes on the wealthy to redistribute income won’t help. ...

[T]he United States can’t always dictate the terms of competition and continue to stand idle without more effective responses than bailouts for General Motors, subsidies for Solyndra and Social Security tax holidays, all paid by borrowing from China.

The United States must force open foreign markets or protect its own, or it will perish.

Spoken like a realist about human nature. 

We need more of that.

Can No One Tell The Truth, Even About The Great Depression?

Seen here:

Between 1929 and 1933, U.S. gross domestic product contracted by around 30%.

Where the hell does that come from?

In 1929 GDP was $103.6 billion. By the end of 1933 GDP had declined to $56.4 billion. That's a decline of over 45 percent, not "around 30 percent."

Matthew Lynn for Marketwatch.com is talking about "the buying opportunity of a lifetime" at the link.

Really? With the Shiller price-to-earnings ratio at 20.43?

The buying opportunity of my lifetime was between 1973 and 1983, when the Shiller p/e ratio rattled around 10, fifty percent lower than it is today. And it just so happens that I didn't have any money to invest in those years like I do today because of a lifetime of saving.

Not even March 2009 was the buying opportunity of a lifetime, when the Shiller p/e fell to around 15.

If you are wise you will keep your powder dry until you see the whites in their eyes, so to speak, when we get to 10. But even then, can you live with yourself if you pull the trigger and then a total market collapse like 1929 brings the p/e closer to 5?

Well, can ya?

Remember the one true thing of Keynesianism: markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. A decline from 10 to 5 can wipe out 50 percent of what you have.

There is nothing which cannot repeat itself, because human nature does not change.

To Hell With Clive Crook and The Financial Times

For phrases, here, such as:

"if there were any such thing as a moderate Republican;"

and

"a pathologically intransigent Republican party."

Why don't you bugger off to The Guardian or something, Clive? You'd be more happy there, fantasizing about how immune from the dark side of human nature you think you are, and how inferior you imagine the Colonies remain.

We beat you, and we'll beat you again, and again and again and again.

Ugliest Political Rhetoric Coming From Those Trying To Exploit A Crime

James Taranto for The Wall Street Journal (at this link) covers all the bases for the last 48 hours on the politicization of the Tucson shooting massacre, with excerpts and links to all the stories, and comes down hardest on those trying to exploit the crime for political gain:

There is no denying that "relentlessly hostile rhetoric" can be found on the right, and also on the left. (On the center, too, for that matter.) Opinions will vary as to where the problem is worst, and it is human nature to find fault with the other side more readily than with one's own.

That said, it seems to us there is a very strong case to be made that the ugliest political rhetoric of the past 48 hours has been that coming from the side whose leading voices are attempting to make sense of a senseless crime by blaming their opponents for it.

Or perhaps we should say from the side that is attempting to exploit the crime in this manner.

Dick Morris, are you listening?

On Systematizing Too Big To Fail

Jonah Goldberg channels William F. Buckley, Jr. to remind us that it is human nature to try to game the system, even the capitalist system:

Washington’s solution to Wall Street’s problems is to get Washington deeply, deeply involved in Wall Street. So involved that the savvier capitalists will recognize — once again — that the safest bets are not to be found in the vicissitudes of a fickle marketplace, but in gaming the system run from Washington. The “reform” coming down the pike will put bureaucrats in charge of investors. If bureaucrats were better than investors, they wouldn’t be bureaucrats. The government will decide which firms are worthy — “systemically important” — and which are not. Those that are will use their official “importance” to game the system. Instead of eradicating “too big to fail,” we will systematize it.

Read the whole thing here.

Arguments Against Libertarianism

1. Liberty is like fire. It is necessary, but not everywhere and at all times and in all circumstances.

2. The American Revolution was not successful because George Washington exercised his right to free speech with the British, but because he shot them.

3. Tolerance ends where fanaticism begins because fanatics with power will never reciprocate.

4. Opinions arrived at under the pressure of the moment are oblivious to the lessons of the past.

5. Individuality is but a step away from the odd, the strange, the weird, the freakish, the nutty, the screwy and the kooky.

6. Eccentricity flies at great speed at the outer edges of the great spiral of the galaxy, threatening to disintegrate at any moment.

7. Libertarians would set free from their cages parakeets in winter.

8. If a traditionalist conservative is like a Protestant Christian, a libertarian conservative is like a Buddhist Christian.

9. Conservatives graze in the pasture. Libertarians are the flies on their backs.

10. Libertarianism is another form of materialism, for which metaphysics is an utter impossibility.

11. Liberty is not primary but is dependent upon law and order for its existence.

12. The cement of society is gratitude, friendship and brotherly love, not self-interest.

13. Human institutions are imperfectible because human nature is an irresolvable mixture of good and evil.

14. Governments which recognize that the state is instituted by God and fear Him restrain human passions, making life richer, more civilized and long.

15. Conservatives recognize others as fellow-travelers to the grave. Libertarians are Ebenezer Scrooge.