Time Waits For No One

While we await the election, the world moves forward. Wars keep spreading. The administration continues its mission to prevent this, but we have the opposite. Ukraine seized Russian territory. In the Middle East, Lebanon is aflame, and Iran is taking blows.. Now, North Koreans have entered Russia, apparently to bolster the Ukrainian front. The conflict containment policy has failed.

Kamala Harris says she wouldn’t change anything. Are we looking at the same wars? While we wait for direction from whomever wins the Presidency, our friends have suffered. At every step of the way, the U.S. put obstacles in the way of the Ukraine, and Israel to deal their foes attitude changing blows. Aggression is best met by a solid and painful response. If it isn’t, the attacker has no reason to desist. When we forget this simple fact, we promote more bad behavior. Lawbreakers paying little price or no price leads to more crime.

Now we have Turkey bombing the Kurds. Remember them? They are the ones who filled the combat role in our victory over Issis. A terrorist attack on military base caused the Turkish action, even though there is no proof it was the Kurds.

Continue reading

Some Thoughts Two Weeks Out

Other than a chance to blame Donald Trump for anything negative in the past decade, Kamala Harris’ appearance on Fox News with Brett Baier brought home how difficult it is to be a former Republican endorsing her. She has always been on the far left of her party. One has only to look at her stands running in 2019 for verification. Harris is right at home because the Biden administration is the most progressive in recent history. Given several chances to distance herself from Biden in several venues, including Brett Baier, she hasn’t found anything substantial where she differed from her boss.

You may detest Donald Trump, the person, or feel he is not your type of conservative, and I can see where you are coming from. I, too, have been critical of Trump, as readers are well aware. If you find the former president abhorrent, don’t vote for him.

What I don’t understand is why you crossed over to the Progressive side. You can’t be much of a Reagan conservative if you support one of the most progressive, if not the most progressive major party presidential candidate ever.

Continue reading

Working Towards Decline

Two happenings this week show how far we’ve traveled from reality. The vice-presidential debate and the East Coast Longshoreman Strike may have little in common, but both evidence an archaic way of thinking. The idea that we can stand in the way of progress in a way that saves everyone’s present job has never worked out in practice. Pursuing such a program with an expanding wage scale is madness.

From Diocletion’s Roman Empire to China’s Qing Dynasty, stopping time by government fiat only resulted in decline. Yet both vice presidential candidates claim they can preserve and bring back manufacturing jobs. J.D. Vance hews to Trump’s tariffs to protect otherwise unprofitable businesses. At the same time, Tim Walz would continue massive subsidies and tariffs to do the same.

The East Coast longshoreman demanded a considerable wage increase and banned further automation. With its potentially severe economic consequences, this strike is a stark reminder of the dangers of resisting technological progress. The Luddites in the U.K. in the early 19th century, who violently opposed technological change and rioted over the introduction of new machinery in the wool industry, would seem to be a strange model to follow. There appears to be a settlement with a significant wage increase, but we don’t know about automation. It’ll be interesting to see the final draft.

Both presidential tickets employ industrial policy methods of protection and subsidies, disregarding the fundamental economic concepts of “Comparative Advantage” and “Opportunity Cost.” Some countries possess advantages that enable them to produce goods more economically. Understanding these concepts is not just important; it’s empowering. It’s the key to making informed economic decisions and fostering growth.

Understanding and applying the principles of comparative advantage is crucial for economic growth; it’s a beacon of hope. Canada could grow dates in greenhouses, but countries with a favorable climate can send them to Canada at a much lower price. On the other hand, wooded Canada has lumber unavailable in date-producing desert nations. Dates for the lumber trade leave everyone with more. Adhering to these principles has allowed billions of people to live better than ever, and continuing to do so can lead to even more prosperity.

Continue reading

It Gets Worse

It’s hard to believe, but both presidential campaigns keep getting worse. Have we learned anything? As I’ve pointed out in my series, “The Long Journey to More,” settled societies were run by the ruling elites for their benefit, while the masses were left to subsistence. Kings and emperors picked winners and losers. It was better to align with the ruling powers than rock the boat with innovation.

From the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt to Louis the Fourteenth in France, rulers dictated who got what. However, the fifteenth century ushered in changes undermining elite arbitrary authority, resulting in markets, not masters dictating actions. More people participated in making, trading, and benefitting from new goods used in innovative ways. A new system replaced the old great for the few but bare sustenance for most with “More” for those allowed to partake.

Moral philosophers began to take notice. The author of “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” proposed that markets, rather than potentates, making decisions on prices and what to produce and sell would bring widespread benefits. The “invisible Hand” of markets was the moral way to “The Wealth of Nations.” At the time, no one thought of this Scotsman as an “economist” because, in retrospect, he was the father of this “science.” He and his contemporaries thought of Adam Smith only as a philosopher.

Continue reading

 The Mouse Doesn’t Like You

Two takeaways from the debate: Trump is still Trump, and we have irrefutable confirmation the bulk media has crossed over to the dark side. Somewhere along the line, it became part of MAGA dogma that Trump is a great debater. The facts never supported this contention. He lost debates with Hillary Clinton in 2016 and failed to win against Joe Biden in 2020. Trump scored a solid victory in a presidential debate only against a feeble Biden in the recent one. You must return to the Republican primary debates in his first run, where Trump appeared to dominate. However, then he could belittle his opponents on a very crowded stage.

Trump, unprepared and drawn into rehashing his 2020 loss, failed to effectively present his case in a debate ripe with opportunities. On the other hand, Kamala Harris delivered many carefully vague, rehearsed answers, mainly unrelated to the questions asked. Her first question was, “Are you better today than four years ago?”‘ It was left unanswered in favor of a planned opening statement, setting the tone for the night’s rest. The ABC moderators’ failure to follow up and press her for an answer was consistent throughout the debate.

In judging the debate, it’s helpful to note what issues Americans care about most:

Before the event, Trump said Disney’s ABC was biased against him, so why agree to a debate where it might be three against one? Possibly, CNN’s recent Biden-Trump debate gave him a false hope of even-handedness. but that time, Biden’s removal was the target.,not him. It might’ve been hubris; maybe he didn’t comprehend how far Disney would go to ensure a Harris victory. Even though we’ve seen moderator bias in Presidential debates before, such as Candy Crowley erroneously intervening to back Barrack Obama over Benghazi Terrorism, severely damaging Mitt Romney when he was about to win his second straight debate.

Continue reading