Prosperity As A Broader Goal

Leave a comment

Wealth is held by individuals, but prosperity is a high level of wealth across society at large.

Prosperity is not, and cannot, be equal or utopian. It need not be in the other direction, but absolute equality in wealth isn’t likely to work out.

Identifying prosperity as a strategic goal leads to several corollaries:

  • Freedom allows the enjoyment of wealth large and small.
  • So far as possible, freedom should be maximized.
  • So far as possible, the creation of wealth should be encouraged.
  • Redistribution of wealth is not a priority.
  • Equalization of society is not a priority.
  • Every effort should be made to encourage bottom-up prosperity.

Now, about that last point.

Bottom-Up Prosperity

Simply put, people should be able to make a profit with the least means possible. Barriers to entry into small business should be low. Government regulation should be the minimum possible. Taxation should be limited as far as possible.

It’s not a matter of handouts or redistribution. It’s a matter of empowering people to make money themselves.

This leads to:

  • Pride in one’s work
  • Higher quality of effort
  • Greater creativity

These are the things that add value, not only to products, but to society itself.

Personal wealth is obviously a goal for people in business, but insofar as the broader world can be influenced by us, it is mutually beneficial for prosperity to be a goal for society.

Prosperity is something that should be beyond reproach, but sadly, this is not so. It is something that should recognize that both supply and demand, both labor and capital, play crucial roles in creating prosperity, and both must exist for prosperity to exist, but sadly, this is discarded in favor of political jockeying on a wide scale.

To me, it’s rather simple. It got simple when I studied the issue and discovered it to be so.

Prosperity: The Most Benefit For Most People

Making prosperity a goal is to hold the general interest, the societal interest, above any particular section thereof for the purposes of creating big-picture, wide-ranging policy.

Being simple does not make it easy. In fact, I find it hard to believe much of anyone will agree with what I have written. It is a hard lesson for some. But, I see no point in not writing what I have come to believe over years of studying these issues.


About that Lockerbie Bomber Release…

Leave a comment

Quoting here:

The note added: “Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.”

Mr LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland “would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi’s release”.

The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.

It claimed this would flout a decade-old agreement between Britain and the US that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.

My bolding.

You know, if he was released on compassionate grounds, he had served the entirety of his legal sentence. It didn’t flout the agreement; the Brits/ Scots just moved the goal posts of what the U.S. had agreed to, breaking the spirit but not the letter of the words.

It still stinks to high heaven, doesn’t it?

In addition, Scotland had no authority to allow this man to leave the country’s borders. (Scotland is not a country; the United Kingdom, however, is.) The U.K. government probably said something like, “Well, he’s been released, his sentence is de facto commuted, we have no grounds to hold him, so *whistling* guess we’ll have to let him go to Libya.” So rather than transfer him to a Libyan jail, the end result was to transfer him to Libya as a free man, which is certainly not what even the Obama administration was privately suggesting (and to this day, refusing to allow the private suggestions to be published so that Scotland can defend itself against public charges by the U.S. Senate).

I’m not sure you can call Straw’s refusing to subject himself to interrogation by a legislative body of a former colony as if the U.K. is a subservient nation (even Canada wouldn’t do that) should be called a “snub” but, the problems are twofold.

  • The Obama admin opened the door to compassionate release without grasping the full consequences of that action.
  • The U.K. government found a legalistic, back door, backhanded method to massively embarrass and humiliate the American government, flaunting the freedom of a man convicted of killing American citizens.

Not much to say about the people demanding an inquiry so that the convicted bomber can have his conviction expunged from his record because they think the trial was a conspiracy and railroading, except: man, you really can’t please anybody, can you.

Pride as a Thinker

Leave a comment

The reason I take lying with statistics so seriously is that it offends my pride as a thinker. To use facts – things that are, in isolation, wholly true – to deceive, misusing them to paint a deceptive picture of a larger situation, is to manipulate and render actual logic useless. By putting garbage in, one gets garbage out, even if the person making the conclusion is behaving perfectly logically… but is unaware of how irrelevant the raw material for the logic is to the actual question.

That such lies are used to promote public policy doubly offends me, for it is not simply a matter of insulting my intelligence, but wasting money that is badly needed where it will do actual good.

Statistics can tell us a great deal about the world, but they can be used to horribly deceive in two ways: a) not recognizing their limits, and b) willfully applying statistics to the wrong questions, ones they were never designed to answer.

If you want an argument treated with respect, you have to be honest and lay your cards on the table, and ensure that you are speaking in a manner that is consistent with the truth.

Note that if the persons concerned had simply argued that the economy is being stimulated by unemployment checks, I would have simply agreed and moved on. It is the argument that these checks are the best money for job creation available that is completely bonkers.

Economics, Lies, and Damned Statistics

Leave a comment

This post at Ezra Klein’s online space at the Washington Post is meant as a defense of Nancy Pelosi’s saying that extending unemployment benefits is the best job creation measure out there; that it is the most bang for the buck.

Specifically, it includes this graph.

Let me put this in small words.


The part at the bottom says, “$ Change in GDP for Each $ Spent.”

When you mistake changes in GDP for the creation of jobs, there is no saving you. You are off the deep end, you are floating in a different dimension of reality. You are not remotely on the same planet as the rest of us in the real economy.

Unemployment is spent on rent or mortgage, utilities, and food. Of course it is spent and not saved. Is it spent on new cars? No. Is it spent on durable goods? No. How many jobs do you think unemployment check extensions are creating in the banking, utilities, and farm sectors?

Someone should teach these people that in a properly functioning economy, the same money “bounces around” as it is used by each party whose hands it enters to buy more goods from other participants in the economy. Money that is 100% spent, but goes straight back to the banking system, to the utilities, or to federally subsidized industrial sized farms, is far less “stimulative” and far less helpful to job creation and job growth than money that bounces around like a pinball.

It isn’t just a matter of how much of $1 thrown into the economy is spent. It’s what that dollar is spent on.

People who can’t grasp that have no hope of understanding how to help the economy. They will throw money at the problem in manners based on statistics that are, by definition, completely out of touch with job creation. GDP was never meant or designed to measure jobs.  I thought Democrats castigated Republicans under George Bush Sr. for worshiping GDP data in a jobless recovery. Maybe they did, and it doesn’t matter; they need to celebrate everything they can get, just like the Republicans tried to do back then.

The point is, mistaking a proportional rise in GDP for total gainful economic activity relevant to job creation is dumb, dumb, DUMB economics. It screams to me that there is something rotten in Washington, and everyone will suffer for it.

I have nothing against smart stimulus. This isn’t it.

My Writing About Zen

Leave a comment

The best summary of what I’ve written about Zen is at Zen: Life Made Simple at the hyperlink. You can also find the Zen for an Uncluttered Life feature at Technorati. For this and other commentary, you can visit the Learn Out Live Blog also.

The idea behind all this is to promote Education for Better Living, the idea that the more we know, and the less tangled what we know happens to be, the better off our lives will be, both in terms of bounty and enjoyment.

Having said this, I am in no way a formal teacher (or even student) of Zen; good luck finding a Zen center in rural Nova Scotia. My years of living in a small-time place have helped concentrate my mind on issues of simplification and mental clarity, and I like sharing that with the world, but this is the pursuit of the Zen idea, not Zen the religion. Then again, I firmly maintain that Zen was never something that belonged to monks alone. If it had, it would never have been part of the background of Japanese society.

The Five Dangerous Faults in a General

Leave a comment

Sun Tzu was doing lists long before bloggers, so why not follow his lead? With Gen. McChrystal’s sudden fall from grace, this is a good topic to address.

1. Recklessness

A general who is brave but not judicious – that is, makes bad calls – gets his troops and his army in a lot of trouble. Recklessness means taking stupid chances out of a need to prove one’s courage to others.

2. Cowardice

Obviously, cowardice itself is also a vice. In organized conflict, it is the power of organization which makes the soldiers into an army, an entity greater than the sum of its parts. An army has much more fighting power than a collection of individuals of equal number. Cowardice wastes this energy and coherence.

3. A Hair-Trigger Temper

A general with a hasty temper is easily provoked by insults. This can lead him to making reckless mistakes. This is a product of a lack of self-discipline.

4.  A Thin Skin

Someone who is so thin skinned that any insult to his honor is a vile provocation that must be answered in kind is little different from 3), which leads to 1). Having honor (that is, pride) is hardly a defect, but insecurity leading to knee-jerk reactions is a dangerous fault indeed.

5. Losing Sight of the Big Picture

It’s great to care for the rank and file. It’s the sign of a decent human being. However, caring too much and valuing the men over the mission generally brings ruin to both. A general obsessed with his men will make small-scale decisions intended to help them, leading to large-scale ruin.


A general must recognize that war is bigger than any one man (including him); no one is irreplaceable. A general must tolerate small injuries to his pride and even to the lives of his men to make the decisions that lead to mission success and fewer net casualties. Obsession with any small issue leads to hasty and reckless decisions that sacrifice the mission and (usually) the troops as well. However well-intended thinking small might be, a general who isn’t thinking big is leading his army into deep trouble.

My Discovery Of Zen

Leave a comment

Now, in fairness, it isn’t really Zen that I discovered; it’s that I actually understand it to the point of writing a couple of articles about Zen and also, Chi, the Asian concept of internal energy. My work has now become the basis of a new feature on Technorati.

My article on Chi.

My article on Zen.

I like writing. I’m very bad at the chore of inserting links and other grunt work. I haven’t used Twitter enough. Put these three things together, and it forms this conclusion: I’m probably going to blog traditionally less, but do a lot more micro-blogging with Twitter, replying to articles, linking to articles with Twitter, and so on.

Many people say you should be very narrow in what you Tweet. I find that this just doesn’t work. Maybe it’s different in other areas. For mine, I have to blog as a complete person and not just leave part of myself out. It doesn’t mean I have to write indiscriminately. I still intend to avoid politics from my own lips, even if I may mention what others write about it from time to time (as a source of news on recent events). Even so, the point is to spread what little knowledge I have about this vast, complex world to others.

Will it work? Who knows? All I know is, I have more Zen in me than I suspected. More will come.

Older Entries Newer Entries