Free Capital to Finance “More”

A great idea without the capital to make  it happen remains just another missed opportunity. Tune in the TV show”Shark Tank” and you get a good idea of the important interplay between ideas and the where with-all to implement them. So what is this lubricant to ease us into a better future? Capital is deferred consumption. Early on someone realized that eating all the grain they found left no seed to plant and surely none to increase the acreage under cultivation. To have more meant setting aside “seed corn”. Put off eating the sheep and you can get more sheep and warmth while you wait. If we have more grain, wool or meat than we can presently use we can trade it for other stuff. In a nutshell, we have “More”.

The problem arose when trades were inconvenient because of time, place or both. Entity A has fish to trade for wine, entity B has wine but doesn’t need fish at the moment. Entity C needs fish and has pretty rocks from which metal could be extracted to trade. Now A finds  it could trade C’s pretty metal for B’s wine. More importantly, where wine and especially fish could spoil and were bulky to store, the shiny metal could be shaped for easy storage or trade and it never spoiled. With these attributes it performed a further function, a store of value.

Continue reading

A Letter to Rush Limbaugh

Yesterday I switched from your program and ultimately settled at NPR’s Weekly Review. It was then that I realized that a bond with an old friend had been irretrievably broken. No we have never met, but having tuned you in when possible for decades believing I had a reliable on air small government free market soul mate, for me it was a relationship. While your program went national after the Reagan Revolution had already taken place, you provided a daily dose of not only your thoughts but those like minded conservative thinkers. Talking not only of your meeting  William F. Buckley, but reading from contributors to his National Review. You quoted endlessly from Thomas Sowell’s books and columns. Even when you were off we were treated to  your most popular guest host, Walter Williams. All this did much to further the cause. Without  many other capitalist media sources, you provided a megaphone for free market ideas and exposing the follies of big government. Yet here I was listening to you mocking Thomas Sowell and all those “establishment elites” contributing to National Review and it’s  like minded sister publications. How could they talk about media ratings whores that just might include you? The thought that you might fit the description came to me when I heard you speak of Baseball’s Arizona Diamondback owning Kendricks who were willing to spend millions in  order to stop Donald Trump even if it meant losing ticket sales without any comprehension or understanding of their convictions from you. Chicken or egg, which came first for you, following some of your audience drifting into Pat Bucannan nativism  or did you get there all by yourself to attract the “blame it all on others crowd” to bolster your ratings? It doesn’t matter. Here you are endorsing, a mercantilist big government nativist. Thomas Sowell , the other “Elites”or I haven’t changed our convictions, so it has to be you. Look in the mirror and tell us what you see. Is it a man who changed out of conviction? Then you owe it to your audience to explain your journey to from  free markets to protectionism and all the rest. Is it being a media ratings whore? Others such as Glen Beck, Mark Levin and those Wisconsin talkers all risked losing listeners but went with their convictions but  not you if you still believed in free markets. Or maybe you see a Trump slogan spouting guy in sun glasses who refuses to listen to rational argument. Repeating the hoary argument of anyone is better than Clinton when you can’t possibly know what in fact Donald Trump believes or would do in office puts you behind the sunglasses.. “I’m against  raising  the minimum wage/I’m for raising the minimum wage” “I’ll open the coal mines, but I’m for Nuclear power” and on and on. At least with Hillary we know where she stands and can oppose her. With Trump you’re probably sleeping with the enemy and all that portends. In any case, it isn’t just a choice between the two. Conservatives vote Republican because it is closest to their convictions, but now many will find the Libertarian Party and their  candidate philosophically closer than either and they will have that choice in every state. After all, this is a year where anything can happen. Well, what about the Supreme Court you cry? One thing we know is that the Trumps are a close knit family. Who would Trump go to for advice on appointments, his left leaning judge sister or some “loser”conservatives?  What would you bet your future on? A libertarian would be a much safer choice to appoint judges that would limit government excess. Empty slogans not reason. At least the sun won’t get in your eyes.

I don’t expect an answer and if you comment on the air I won’t hear it.  Just getting some closure to a long term relationship. I’ll post this on the Blog so in the future people will know why I have no Idea what Rush is saying and have no interest in finding out. .