Are We Rome?

"Whether ancient or modern, monarch or republic, coin or paper, each nation descends pretty much the same slippery slope, expanding government to address perceived needs, accumulating too much debt, and then repudiating its obligations by destroying its currency."

James Turk and John Rubino

If you study economic history, this lesson is repetitive and redundant. Currencies are slowly devalued and then destroyed.

The result? Economic stagnation, hyper-inflation (as too many dollars go about chasing too few goods and services produced), unemployment and high interest rates.

Why is this lesson never learned?

Are we smarter, better educated, more informed or simply more modern than past societies that their lessons don't need to be learned again?

Ostensibly we pass family values to our children so each generation does not need to keep re-learning the same lessons over and over. How come we don't seem to learn, or want to learn, from history?

We are dug into a hole now that mathematically we cannot get out of. What we have done to ourselves simply has to be repudiated and changed back to what got us here and not what will destroy our society from here.

If you study the history of Rome you see many frightful comparisons to us and our world. Much of our society is based on Roman ideas! Are we Rome? It looks to me as if we are trying real hard to be.

Base

"He is base - and that is the one base thing in the universe - to receive favors and render none."

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

This is a poet choosing a word that describes what he wants to say.

Look up the word "base." It is a noun and an adjective.

In my Oxford Dictionary there are nine definitions for this word as a noun. As I read the definitions, it is obvious that he intends for us to understand the word as an adjective.

There are three such definitions, but one applies to precious metals. I am sure that is not what he intends.

The other two are instructive, however:

1 without moral principles, ignoble
2 of low social class

Ignoble is an interesting word too. Oxford thinks that means "not honorable."

So, to be "base," one is immoral and not to be honored and lowbrow.

The older I become, I realize that societies do not line up left or right, liberal or conservative, right or wrong, big gubment or small gubment, or any such leaning.

I think societies are made up of providers and takers, contributors and drainers, and assets and liabilities.

• When I hear interviews with people who have no experience contributing, but who want, and want, and want, and, well, let's see, that might not be the right word. Perhaps demand is the right word. Who demand, and demand and demand that something be given them - I think that is "base."
• When I hear people speak who want to divide and take advantage of division based on something as irrelevant as heritage or skin color - I think that is "base."
• When I experience people who are more creative about 'using the system,' whatever the 'system,' than I am about what I do for a living, and make more money 'using the system' than I do contributing to the 'system' - I think that is "base."
• When I listen to interviews with people who feel entitled to my assets, to what I contribute, to what I am trying to provide for myself and family and who think lunch is free - I think that is "base."
• When I hear people, empty, vacuous people, who, with specious cliches and using words they cannot define, think that the economic system of FREE ENTERPRISE is unfair, or mean, or oppressive, or unfairly divides the skilled from the unskilled with rewards - I think that is "base."

WE REAP WHAT WE SOW! THERE CAN BE NO OTHER WAY THAT IS MORE FAIR, LESS MEAN, OR LESS OPPRESSIVE - BUT FREE ENTERPRISE DOES DIVIDE, NECESSARILY - IT MUST DIVIDE - BECAUSE IT IS FREE.

I don't try to take from anybody, I don't scheme to take from anybody, and I don't work 'the system' to get something from others and keep for myself. But I affiliate with a subculture (my church) that strives to give, and serve, and provide when needed, and contribute voluntarily - and when I am in need and someone voluntarily, and lovingly, provides for me - I will accept that offering. I think that offering is "exalted."

I believe in THAT system.

I BELIEVE IN THAT SYSTEM BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT TO BE "EXALTED" IS THE OPPOSITE OF "BASE."

And like Mr. Emerson, I am getting really, really fed up with "base." I am getting really, really fed up with the takers, the drainers and the liabilities. And I am frightened by a society that promotes them as "exalted."

Government Impositions

"As government increases in quantity, our lives decrease in quality."

Joel Miller

This is something that everyone knows who has had to deal with the gubment for any reason. The bureaucracies increase in number, with its offices and officers. The rules and regs necessarily have to increase in number and get more complex with detail. Paperwork and personal responsibility has to increase in difficulty and time requirement as we are all burdened by more and more gubment demands.

Of course our lives decrease in quality!

Every time the gubment imposes anything, it does nothing but make life harder.

One of Jefferson's complaints made in the Declaration of Independence was this: "He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." We have allowed far more gubment intrusion into our lives than our fore fathers revolted against as imposed by King George III!

Nearly two years ago, frustrated with the continual postal service price increases, I was unable to buy stamps. I wrote a blog about it here. One of the last things I said was, "YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE FUTURE OF HEALTH CARE. THE DIFFERENCE IS, THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE IT SO YOU CANNOT, CANNOT, CANNOT GO TO A PRIVATE PROVIDER FOR CHEAPER, QUICKER AND BETTER SERVICE."

The gubment intentionally makes it so you cannot go to a private provider to get the same "service."

Why would they do that? Because it improves our quality of life?

Pioneer Or Plodder?

"There are always two kinds of people in the world - those who pioneer and those who plod. The plodders always attack the pioneers. They say that the pioneers have gobbled up all the opportunity, when, as a plain matter of fact, the plodders would have nowhere to plod had not the pioneers first cleared the way."

Henry Ford (1863-1947)

Why do plodders plod? Because they don't pioneer! Plodders are victims. Plodders think themselves entitled to other's gain. Plodders are blamers. Plodders are whiners. Plodders take and don't give. Plodders destroy and do not create. Plodders get no where fast. Plodders tear down and don't build up. Plodders are never at fault. Plodders put off til tomorrow what could be done today.

Plodders make it more difficult for everybody.

Plodders are everywhere!

Like Mr. Ford says, there are two kinds of people in the world. Free enterprise pioneers. Gubment plods.

Isn't it always the way - the pioneers vs. the plodders... Which are you?

Plodders need to get out of the way!

Living At The Expense Of Others

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone."

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

French economist Bastiat's thinking was very important to free market economic thinking. His authorship of The Law is something everyone should read in school. It is small enough that a 6th grader could read it without losing interest.

In our era of entitlement thinking, not new by the way, and gimme, gimme, gimme "economics," nobody seems to remember this teensy thing:

IN ORDER TO GET FROM THE GUBMENT, THE GUBMENT HAS TO TAKE FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

Yes, the word is TAKE.

How many people would walk around their neighborhoods, knocking on doors, and asking their neighbors to just give them money for whatever the purpose? Most people would never do that.

But they would line up all night for the proverbial gubment cheese. Or to sidle up to the gubment sow and start suckling. Not everyone is good at doing that either! But a lot do!

Bastiat's idea that the gubment lives at the expense of everyone is so well said it can hardly be added to.

But consider this: there are a couple of classes of entitlement in our society.

There are those who think they don't need to work to receive. That group is growing in number, percentage and in sound. These are the gimme, gimme, gimme types. They are becoming more and more forward and more and more demanding. They believe in the cliche FREE LUNCH.

But there is another more insidious, and very burgeoning entitlement class. This group is also growing in number and percentage, but they are being very quiet. This group is composed of our "royalty." I define our "royalty" as those who have "served" in gubment and think that doing so should afford them a retirement and every benefit under the sun for the rest of their lives. Not only them, but their families too!

To the first group I would say, as did Bastiat, that there is no such thing as a FREE LUNCH.

To the second group I would say that there is no such thing as a FREE LIFE.

TELL ME, WHICH GROUP BOTHERS YOU THE MOST?

How The West Grew Rich

"The underlying source of the West’s ability to attract the lightning of economic revolutions was a unique use of experiment in technology and organization to harness resources to the satisfaction of human wants. The key elements of the system where the wide diffusion of the authority and resources necessary to experiment; an absence of more than rudimentary political and religious restrictions on experiment; and incentives which combined ample rewards for success, defined as the widespread economic use of the results of experiment, with a risk of severe penalties for failing to experiment. The thematic terms are thus autonomy, experiment, and diversity*."

Nathan Rosenberg & L. E. Birdzell, Jr.

So, did the West grow rich because of the monopolistic and capitalistic preying of large corporations on the masses of the ignorant and uneducated, suppressing their advantages and to gain advantage at their expense?

NO!

An underlying economic system of free markets, combined with the politics of liberty and rugged individualism, allowed for immigration which came to take advantage of those things - freedoms economic and religious - to make better lives for themselves than any one of them could have in the repressive places from which they came.

And immigrants came by the millions to take advantage of these freedoms.

* Diversity did not have anything to do with cultures but with the various skills and contributions individuals were able to make to the whole. Each worker, from the coolie to the accountant, made the whole work.

Corporate entities are interactive systems. Every aspect of the macro-system is influenced by what goes on in each of the micro-systems which make it up. One needs a systems approach to make it work.

Economies are interactive systems. Every aspect of the macro-system is influenced by what goes on in each of the micro-systems which make it up. One needs a systems approach to make it work.

And to the extent that bureaucrats and inexperienced gubment whiz bangs think that they can manage and control the trillions of voluntary interactions of each micro piece of this huge macro pie breaks down the whole, and affects it to work less efficiently than it can operate on its own.

Gubment intervention and regulation is to the detriment of all. Wasn't George Stigler awarded the 1982 Nobel Prize in Economics for proving the same?

Working together from the bottom up we can help get gubment out of our abilities to progress. Yes we can!

P.s. I HIGHLY, HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING THE BOOK!

Philosophy Of Failure

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Churchill was a man with a backbone. He came along at exactly the time he was needed. We need more of him today!

He saw a threat, and recognized it as the great threat it could become, and went about with his warning. HE NEVER GOT OFF TOPIC.

How did he recognize this threat? He read a book! The book's title was "My Struggle." It was written by an activist, a community organizer, while he was in prison.

What was his struggle? Hope and change! To overthrow the shackles that bound his country, and the people who administered them. He would bring down capitalism and communism and impose an economic system only he was smart enough to lead - fascism.

And he intended to do so with charisma, "science," (Eugenics) and the occult. Of course he would be The Leader. His order would spread worldwide, and last 1000 years!

Churchill was on message for many years. It wasn't until 10 May 1940 that people finally saw that he was right and felt his strength enough to vote him into office as Prime Minister.

Truly many, many were saved by so very, very few. You and I benefit from this legacy today!

What happened to Churchill? After WWII Great Britain felt the need to make a hard left turn, economically and politically. They saw the fabled FREE LUNCH at the end of the rainbow. Churchill wanted no part of it. And he stayed on message then too!

But, like before, nobody wanted to listen. And he soon had such little value that they cast him off. And thus ended the country's influence, progress, and international contribution. Little by little it fell apart. Was it not for the United States, they would NEVER had had enough production to rebuild after the war.

I bet Great Britainers wish Churchill was still around today...