The Golden Gate

Oh, man:

Bloomberg has become so used to being chaffeured about that he’s either forgotten (or never knew) that there are times when acceleration is necessary for passing, merging, etc., and that preventing people from speeding on occasion will likely create more safety hazards than simply continuing to police speeders as the city presumably does now.  That such nannystatist programs—proferred always in the name of public safety but used, primarily, as a way to increase revenues—continue cropping up, leads me to believe that what we really need is a device placed on Mayors that light up everytime these bored petty tyrants do something other than, say, cut the ribbon at some mall opening, or fire up the Bat signal, should the Penguin get all uppity.

That way, at least people will have time to hide their wallets.

Indeed.

It is a long-ish article using Detroit as the American problem model, but any City could learn from it, including my own San Francisco:

[...] It needs to be said at the outset that no government in the U.S., not even Detroit’s, has ever imposed the kind of crushing regulations that the Indian government imposed during the height of the notorious License Raj in the mid-’50s. Key industries—steel, telecommunications, airlines—were nationalized, but even more harmful was the Kafkaesque web of regulations that the remaining private businesses had to endure in the name of ensuring a “rational allocation of resources.”

Every move of private industry, big or small, was subject to licensing. Forget setting up a new plant or a factory. If an enterprise wanted to buy or import equipment, change its product mix, or even produce more than its allotted quota for a product, it had to first obtain permission from the Directorate General of Technical Development, a process that could take years and a small fortune in bribes, points out Gurcharan Das, author of India Unbound and former CEO of Procter & Gamble, India. “Large business houses set up parallel bureaucracies in Delhi to follow up on files, organize bribes, and win licenses,” he recalls.

Confronted with a massive fiscal crisis and the prospect of defaulting on its international debt obligations, the Indian government dismantled much of this ridiculous licensing regime in 1991. In a bid to boost exports to replenish the country’s empty foreign exchange reserves, it also eliminated all import licensing and slashed tariffs on capital goods. Both were relics of India’s import-substitution days, when manufacturers were discouraged from buying equipment from abroad in order to build the domestic industry. This jacked up production costs and made the country’s exports hopelessly uncompetitive.

Trade liberalization was a boon for the I.T. industry, which already had escaped many of the stultifying controls that other industries faced simply because the architects of India’s industrial policy had failed to anticipate its birth. [...]

read the rest on your own.

Well, Al Gore’s PowerPoint Slideshow/Movie is opening today, and it got a glowing review in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The following is more “food for thought” on the subjects addressed by Gore’s film:

Instapundit — “SO I GUESS KYOTO WORKED, THEN: “Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase.” (from the Telegraph, UK)

“UPDATE: Canada is abandoning Kyoto. Just when it was starting to work!”

On the “Inconvenient” Movie itself:

From _Slate_:

“…This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases “is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical.” Wouldn’t deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use is maddening waste; most has raised living standards. The era of fossil energy must now give way to an era of clean energy. But the last century’s headlong consumption of oil, coal, and gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore’s airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn’t seem to find unethical. The former vice president clicks up a viewgraph showing the human population has grown more during his lifetime than in all previous history combined. He looks at the viewgraph with aversion, as if embarrassed by humanity’s proliferation. Population growth is a fantastic achievement—though one that engenders problems we must fix, including inequality and greenhouse gases. Gore wants to have it that the greener-than-thou crowd is saintly, while the producers of cars, power, food, fiber, roads, and roofs are appalling. That is, he posits a simplified good versus a simplified evil. Just like a movie!”

“The Moral Flaws of Al Gore’s _An Inconvenient Truth_”

Brief “Inconvenient” responses (video):

(60 second spot questioning the science behind Gore’s film):

“Glaciers”

“Captain Planet”

“If you don’t fly commercial, don’t talk to me about greenhouse gases or conservation.” (Instapundit, again)
A comprehensive and humorous look at “Inconvenient” that (among other things) questions the moral congruence of Gore promoting “Inconvenient” by flying all over the country in his private Gulfstream jet (which on a single one-way LA-DC trip burns as much fuel as a Hummer does in a year). Also looks at some of the recent Hollywood Celeb “Environmental Ads” featuring Cameron Diaz, Gwyneth Paltrow and others…

Video Here.

More writings:

A second look at Climate Change data in the WSJ.

Finally, here is Michael Crichton who posits that Environmentalism is our modern, western fundamentalist religion.

heh.

As I was preparing to sit down for a nice brunch with my wife today before we made our way over to the ballpark for the Sunday afternoon Giants game, I read this article by Al Saracevic in the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle. Essentially, Al’s point seemed to be that oil companies are making lots and lots of money, and also that the response thus far from politicians has been less than inspiring.

I don’t disagree. But I was left feeling like there was a great deal of GOOD news that Saracevic had ignored in his column. So I wrote him the following email:

“Thought provoking stuff today.

There is an upside to the higher gas prices, of course, part of which is simply that people will be driving less (as the Chronicle reported on Page One this week.) More carpooling and public tranist use will result. People will weigh fuel economy more heavily when considering their next vehicle purchase. Those are GOOD things, right?

Also, as gas prices rise, alternative energy sources become relatively more attractive. So, there’s another benefit: powerful stimulus to the development and use of (greener) alternatives.

There may be frustration in some quarters that market forces will accomplish what endless TV pieces, Op-Eds and Public Service Announcements so far have not been able to achieve — making a real, widespread change in American behavior. But let’s face it, many of us make a change when we feel some pinch of discomfort, not when it vaguely “seems like a good idea.”

Oh, and one other thing: the numbers you quoted in todays column about oil revenue seem huge. Heck, they ARE huge. But one needs some context to properly understand them. I’m not sure your readers got that context from your piece today (perhaps in a follow-up piece?)

I think the following speaks powerfully to the questiton of “oil profiteering”. (Via Instapundit):

‘ From 1986 to 2003, using 2004 dollars, the real national annual average price for gasoline, including taxes, generally has been below $2 per gallon,” noted the Federal Trade Commission in a 2005 report absolving the industry of collusion. “By contrast, between 1919 and 1985, real national annual average retail gasoline prices were above $2 per gallon more often than not.”

In other words, gasoline prices were lower than at anytime since 1919 for much of recent history. Some conspiracy! Maybe somebody should have been investigating consumers for “gouging” the oil companies.

And just who is the profiteer here? While the average profit on the sale of a gallon of gasoline is nine cents, the average state and federal tax on that same gallon of gasoline is about 45 cents (and 52 cents in Michigan). And if we must have an investigation, how about investigating the extent to which government regulations drive up prices and block new production?

Management guru Peter Drucker once remarked, with his usual drollery, that profit is “whatever government lets a company keep.” But most folks have a vastly inflated view of corporate profits. One regular survey of Americans found that the majority believes the average corporate profit is between 30 percent and 40 percent of sales, while the real figure is closer to 4 percent.

Washington should cool its carburetors. The pursuit of profit is one of the main engines of Western progress and prosperity. And as people in my neck of the woods are fast learning, it is only out of profit that we can afford to pay for a comfortable retirement. As profits in the steel, airline and auto industries erode or even vanish, so do pensions and health care benefits, not to mention jobs. ‘
I encourage you to read the entire thing here. ”

JASON ADDS: it is not just that higher prices make alternatives more attractive. Additionally, it actually makes them economically viable to explore. Not just greener energies, but also shale oil and other difficult [read: expensive] points of extraction and extraction methods for fossil fuels. Right now bio-diesel [that cool soybean/vegetable oil fuel] is still more costly than a gallon of gasoline. Supply and demand limited production.

Additionally, while record profits have been recorded for oil co’s recently, that is a gross number, rather than a percentage of revenue. As a percentage of revenue, profits have remained largely the same–at about 10% 9.4% recently [can't find source I read days ago]. When oil companies raise the cost of gasoline, it is because _their_ costs have increased. Article on basic economics of price controls [that far too many are ignorant on and of] here. If gov’t really wanted to do something about gas prices rather than just grandstanding, they would relax environmental regulations on building refineries and expanding that capacity, they would do away wth boutique additives and mixtures of same that require certain regions, states, and municipalities to sell specific mixtures — they would _standardize it_ or repeal it altogether and they would forget about enthanol [it is more expensive as an additive than MTBE], but again, environmental regulations and exposure to liability drove the oil co’s away from MTBE. AND the Senate would permit drilling in ANWR and our costal areas. Canada and Cuba are doing it anyway in areas we will not allow ourselves to.

If they were serious, they would have these items as a to-do list and educate the public after [probably and sadly] educating themselves about basic economics. A politician making decisions about economic policy is the equivalent of a professional wrestler making decisions for the NFL’s competition committee; they might watch the game, but they have no real idea about what is happening and how.

UPDATE JASON further adds: a great piece on perspective and profit here comparing Exxon [9.4%] profit to GE/NBC [60%!!] and adds a few others for good measure. My conclusion? PRICE GOUGING FOR ADVERTISING BY NBC. Let’s call for immediate investigations!

A match made in liberal heaven. Bill Nienhuis over at the The Pundit Guy has a great post picking apart the lastest NYT hit piece on Wal-Mart:

NYT Lobs Another Airball at Wal-Mart.

Here’s a sample:

The New York Times doesn’t like Wal-Mart, and over the years, the Old Gray Lady has taken shots at America’s Store in hopes of crippling it’s leadership and slowing its success. Goaded by the labor unions, the NYT goes to great lengths to splatter mud on Wal-Mart’s corporate practices.

They demonize Wal-Mart and characterize its management as dictators controlling an evil empire from the bridge of the death star in Bentonville, Arkansas. Why? It’s simple really. The New York Times is run by liberals living in a bubble who oppose good old fashioned capitalism. They don’t believe in an American Dream that enables a family owned business to build itself up to become the worlds largest retailer, employing 1.6 MILLION people in 3,800 stores in the US alone.

The liberals at the NYT and their ACLU brethren truly believe that Wal-Mart’s goal is to victimize and enslave their workforce. In a nutshell, they believe a Wal-Mart store is no different than a sweatshop in a third world country, and they must be stopped.

Be sure to read all of it.

The University of California @ Santa Barbara just completed a study of the costs of turnover associated with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gays in the military.

The Captain has a great post on this topic. Here is a sample:

In short, it appears that the UCSB study considered the costs in the same manner as any corporation would when reviewing its turnover. Hiring costs always include recruitment, orientation, and all training conducted to bring a new hire to a fully functional level. When employees get culled out for any reason, the cost of replacement includes all of those tasks, and whether one accepts the GAO number or the UCSB number, it adds up quickly.

Interestingly, the number of people drummed out of the service during the ten years under review, around ten thousand, is less than half of the number of those who leave due to pregnancy, and less than a third of those who can’t make weight. The commission that conducted the study use the data to argue for an end to the current policy and the rejection of homosexuals in the service, but I do notice that they do not use this same data to argue for an end to the induction of women. Nor do they mention any endorsement for tightening weight requirements for new recruits.

Nevertheless, I think the panel has a point about gays in the military. As Barry Goldwater remarked in his later years, the only requirement for soldiers should be whether they shoot straight. It seems like a foolish and irrational burden for the armed services to carry, one perhaps understandable when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder but hard to justify now.

Indeed. Be sure to read it all.

By Vedran VuK

An ex-girlfriend once told me, “You treat me like a piece of property.” As an economics major, my first reaction was: How great that the center of my affection truly understands the way I feel! Butterflies in my stomach, rainbows, unicorns, big red hearts shot through my enamored mind. When someone truly understands you, what can you feel but joy?

If I treated her as if she were my property, after all, it means that I would take care of her, protect her, and treat her well above all things not in my possession.

Suddenly, I realized the look on her face did not reflect the combusting happiness within me.

Then, I realized my error. We are all self owners, she as much as I. But let’s say I were treating her like property. That raises the extremely important issue:

“Do you mean public or private property?”

Read the rest on your own over at The Mises Institute.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

The CATO Institute has one of those posts that I just love. This one dismantles the conventional wisdom about rent control and its benefits.

Here is just a small sample of a rich piece:

There can be no doubt that rent control creates housing shortages. For almost 20 years, national vacancy rates have been at or above 7 percent–a figure generally considered normal. Cities such as Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix, where development is welcomed, have often had vacancy rates above 15 percent. In these areas of the country, there usually is a surplus of housing rather than a shortage. Landlords commonly advertise “move-in specials,” where rent is reduced for the first month or even where they pay moving expenses.

In rent-controlled cities, on the other hand, vacancy rates have been uniformly below normal. New York City has not had a vacancy rate above 5 percent since World War II. (The state’s rent control law, supposedly temporary, would automatically expire if it did.) Before giving up rent control, Boston’s vacancy rate was below 4 percent. (There are no figures as of yet on the rate since rent control ended.) In rent-controlled San Francisco, the vacancy rate is generally around 2 percent, and in San Jose the rate is 1 percent, the nation’s lowest. Meanwhile, comparable nonrent-controlled cities, such as Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego, and Seattle have normal vacancy rates at or above 7 percent.

If you know nothing of what shortages do to prices that is well covered. Here is a taste:

It is also striking how affordable housing is in most free-market cities. In Philadelphia, the nation’s fifth largest city, the most common advertised rent, the mode, is between $450 and $500–below both the advertised and census medians. (See Figure 1.) In Chicago, the mode was $500 to $550, also below both medians. Unregulated cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, San Diego, Phoenix, and Seattle seem to have almost perfectly competitive housing markets, with housing available at every price level but clustered at the low end.

The two cities with strict rent control are glaring exceptions to this pattern. In both New York (see Figure 2.) and San Francisco, advertised rents peaked at $2,000–more than triple the U.S. Census median rent for each city. The median advertised rent in New York was $1,350, in San Francisco, $1,400–both more than double the census median. More important, there were almost no rental units available at the low end of the market. In both San Francisco and New York, less than 10 percent of advertised rents were below the census median. (The New York figures also included listings from the Daily News and the New York Post, which are slanted toward the lower end of the market.) Rent control in both these cities appears to make housing spectacularly unaffordable.

Go read the whole thing here.

Nothing new. Just more complex structures and different framing on the same old government controlled utpoia. I laugh at “Free Trade Agreement”. They are many, many pages that are negotiated over the course of years. Hysterical. This is not “free trade”. Free trade would require at most a few sentences. Something like this: “As of this date, the signatories hereby rescind and/or declare null and void any restrictions, quotas, or tarrifs between the two countries in any industry or industries where they previously existed or were instituted by the governments of said Countries.”

Politics be damned. It would be the right thing to do for all.

Free trade agreements, my ankle.

The cartelization of the global textile trade dates back to the 1950s when America coerced a major developing exporter, Japan, into short-term “voluntary” export restraint arrangements with quotas, which became commonplace between developed countries seeking to protect an influential domestic industry and poor countries seeking to shield nascent export opportunities from retaliation. Such deals evolved into the Multi-Fiber Arrangements, which institutionalized governments’ management of the trade. The 1995 Agreement on Textiles and Clothing abolished the MFA over a ten-year transition period, freeing textiles in a manner consistent with global trade rules beginning January 1, 2005.

For China’s competitive textile industry, the prospect of quota-free trade was an immensely appealing inducement for its government to join the World Trade Organization. Since January 1 Chinese exports of clothing and textile products to the United States, the world’s largest textile market, have jumped more than 40%.

Anxious about Beijing’s growing economic clout and nebulous military ambitions, the Bush administration has invoked safeguard clauses embedded in China’s conditions for WTO membership to unilaterally re-institute limits on import levels of individual product lines. In the eleven months since the expiration of the MFA, the administration has exercised this option for 19categories of clothing.

The appeal of the accord struck between the American and Chinese governments is clear. Washington constrains foreign competition in 34 textile product lines without having to rule out further trade restrictions or annually renew the quotas, as would be the case with the 19 items it had already subjected to safeguards. Beijing pockets average growth rates of about 15% per annum in the pertinent textile categories over the life of the agreement, which exceeds the 7.5% per annum ceiling America must admit under China’s WTO accession agreement.

Unhelpful intervention

Nevertheless, the justification and efficacy of government meddling in trade matters — especially in the case of Washington’s embrace of textile quotas — is dubious. Not only are political means counterproductive, but such interventionist measures tend to generate real dislocations in its wake where only supposed ones existed.

Read the rest on your own.

Part 0: Introduction

“When people are free to act, they will always act in a way that they believe will maximize their utility, i.e., will raise them to the highest possible position on their value scale. Their utility ex ante will be maximized, provided we take care to interpret “utility” in an ordinal rather than a cardinal manner. Any action, any exchange that takes place on the free market or more broadly in the free society, occurs because of the expected benefit to each party concerned.” –Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market

“We must not be afraid to be free.”–Justice Black

Human beings have an inexhaustible spirit. Through wars, pestilence, oppression, disasters, genocide and personal tragedy, human beings continue to express creativity and ingenuity to the very degree that they are allowed the liberties to do so. It is an unquenchable and inexhaustible Spirit. It is the best—the Divine—within each of us that makes it so. And while at times, we have varying degrees of access to the divine within us, and sometimes the light is dim and flickers, the fact remains that there is a god or goddess in all of us waiting to come out and play.

What if we could integrate our work and our play? Our spirit and our finances? Our economics and our purpose? Our job and our internal worship? The mundane and the divine?

My assertion is that not only is this possible…it is necessary…for the conscious evolution of the planet and for our survival and thrival as a species. Not to mention our personal happiness. As many of us our satisfied–that is we have all the nice stuff. Cars, houses, fine clothing, computers, iPods, great relationships, money…but we remain unfulfilled.

How many of us are seeking something. Trying to fulfill ourselves with something outside? How many of us have done this ourselves? Seeking, looking, grasping…some of us desperately. And yet, what we seek is right within us all along waiting to be discovered. Waiting to be unleashed. Waiting for the full integration into our daily lives…

–

Spiritual and Capitalism are two words that we seldom, if ever, hear in the same sentence unless derisively or pejoratively in this Country. The conventional and majority “wisdom” states that they are diametrically opposed. That one cannot live a truly spiritual life and be a capitalist and that a capitalist is never really up to any good.

Is this conventional wisdom truly wise? Is it even remotely accurate?

First, we must define “capitalism” and “spiritual” if we are to get anywhere in this discussion.

It is worth noting that “capitalism” is a term that was coined my Marx—the greatest self-anointed enemy of capitalism—someone whose economics theories have virtually all been empirically disproved—to live. The irony there is obvious on both counts. Prior to Marx, there was no definition or characterization of “capitalism” really, for it was not a system at all—it was very simply the application of liberty in the economic domain. “Free Market” meant just that—that the market was free and unrestricted. What was the market? Humans engaged in voluntary associations for mutual benefit. Nothing more. That association may have been a mine worker freely associating with the owner of a mine for some agreed upon amount of money per unit of work [hours or perhaps ponds of extracted materials, etc.] or a provider of transport for someone who wishes to travel somewhere or to send goods to a market in another geographical area or someone wanting to “buy money”—that is, take a loan out with the contract obligation to repay it plus a fee [interest], but in no case could there be violent coercion. It is also noting additionally, that “coercion” does not mean “influence” as in political vogue today, as it abrogates free will and muddies the waters. By coercion, we mean violence or the threat of violence against person or property.

It is truly a triumph of rhetoric over reason that the thinking—debunked for over a century now—that in the free market one person always gains at the expense of another still prevails among many laypeople. What has been known almost since the beginning of economics becoming a science is that both parties always benefit—or at least expect to do so—otherwise they would never engage in the association to begin with. For humans always expect—through all their choices and actions—regardless of if they are proven right or not, to benefit or improve their lot by their choices.

Of course, “liberty” does not mean you are “free” to aggress against another’s person or property as an extension of their person though their labor. Therefore, the only “restrictions” were and should be that force and fraud [fraud is implicit force or implicit theft] were actionable torts. Liberty does not mean you are free to do anything you like. Liberty and freedom are different distinctions. What liberty does mean is that you are free from violent aggression from another. You are therefore not “free” to aggress against another, as to do so would violate his or her liberty.

So “capitalism” as it is so ill-named, is liberty practically applied—the ability to freely associate for mutual benefit. Nothing more and nothing less. Anything else is a moral judgment or characterization or perhaps an aesthetic condemnation and therefore not appropriate for a definition as such.

There are, of course, questions of morality and aesthetics, which often confuse this definition or muddle the thinking around it, but for our purposes, we will address those later, if at all. However, that does not mean that they are not important and valid questions. I would love to have that dialogue, it is just beyond the scope of this piece. Let’s is suffice to say that just because you can to something does not mean you should do it. Unfortunately, in this highly politicized and philosophically muddled society, the distinctions among ethics, morality, and aesthetics have become blurred.

What then, is spiritual, for surely, “capitalism is the least spiritual system of economics” is it not–according to the conventional wisdom?

Spirituality or “being spiritual” means so many things to so many people. It may mean following this spiritual text or that spiritual text. It may mean being “Christ-like” or “possessing the Buddha mind” or it may simply mean being pious or acting for the good of others. For still others, it is following the directives of this spiritual leader or that spiritual leader. For still others it is “opening to the Divine” or “becoming one with all things” through meditation and “spiritual practice”. For still others, it is accessing their own consciousness or their creative spirit. How then can we come to a universal definition of “spiritual”?

For this, we must understand the spirit of human beings.

Spir·it n:

1. a vital force that characterizes a living being as being alive
2. somebody’s will, sense of self, or enthusiasm for living
3. an enthusiasm and energy for living
4. somebody’s personality or temperament
5. somebody or something that is a divine, inspiring, or animating influence

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

For our purpose, we will define “spiritual” as: accessing and liberating to the largest degree possible that which is our vital life force and the best we have within us—our creativity, our inspiration, etc. That is, by demonstrating behavioral alignment or pure expression of our highest values.

This could be through art, community, leadership, study, contribution, entrepreneurship, our job roles, or our chores. It could be liberating our minds through meditation. It could be making love to our partner, for anything with which we bring our Spirit to, and engage fully unleashing our highest inner self, can be, and will be, a spiritual experience and we can bring this to most activities, most notably, our ideas and the implementation or actualization of those ideas or visions.

That being the case, let’s examine capitalism, and not-capitalism very briefly.

Anything other than unfettered capitalism—full economic liberty—is marked by increasing intervention by the State. That is—the government.

What then, is the nature of government? Government in any form [from democracy to socialism to communism to monarchism or dictatorship] has two inalienable qualities:

1. a monopoly on the initiation of force over a declared geographical area, often under the pretense of “protecting” its citizens—whether they need it or want it or not;
2. it exists and operates by levying taxes—that is the coercive and compulsory appropriation of money, which if any other organization or group or individual were engaged in would be called “theft” and prosecuted

The more the government intervenes in the affairs of its citizens [including “assisting” its citizens], the more the use of force is employed and to pay for the increase in government “services”, taxation, or debt, must increase—more force. If it is taxation, it is direct and immediate force. If it is debt, it is delayed force as future generation will have no choice in the matter—they are, in a real way, enslaved to the government as a result.

Therefore, the government is always committing the very same acts that it is entrusted to prevent: violence and theft.

The emperor indeed has no clothes, yet all of society is raving about how wonderful his robes are, and how we should make more of them in various colors.

We have already seen that the most spiritual a person can be is liberation of their spirit, often through creativity, and that they have the inalienable right over their own person and body [and by extension their property] is accepted as natural law and our intuitive moral sense. It is obvious that the use of force against someone—one of the few things all humans can agree on as criminal unless it is purely defensive while protecting your person or property—is dampening to their Spirit, not liberating. Therefore, the more the government intervenes, the less “spiritual” and the more liberalized [free] the economy, the more spiritual, as human beings are free to fully express themselves in every domain of their life, including the economic.

Therefore, Capitalism is the most spiritual system.

What of the “evils” of capitalism? Some people think we have a free market in America, and/or in the Western Industrialized core of nations. We do not. We do not have capitalism. We have something between “mercantilism” and “corporate statism”. Most people who argue about the evils of capitalism know not what they speak of, nor even what system we operate within. In fact, America is not a democracy at all—it is a constitutional republic—an important difference.

But let’s leave politics aside for this discussion. For our purposes, we have the needed definitions:

Capitalism: liberty in the economic domain—that is the ability to freely associate for mutual benefit.

Spiritual: The liberation of human creativity or the human “spirit”—that which is highest in ourselves.

Given those definitions, clearly Capitalism is the most spiritual economic system as it allows the freest expression of our highest values to be fully integrated into our life in all domains.

But again…what of the “evils” of capitalism? Of course the problem with capitalism is not really a problem with capitalism per se at all—for all it does is free people to do what they want or can do and receive something in exchange. What about pollution? What about fraud? These are not capitalist. These are criminal. And they flow not from a system—but from action by people at lower levels of conscious and moral development.

What capitalism has done is expose man’s faults for all to see, not created them. Systems do not create these problems, people–individuals–do.

What about contribution? What about caring for others? What about giving? One of the major errors committed by detractors of Capitalism and liberty is that they presuppose of the government was not handling something it would not get handled. I think we can all see how silly that idea is on its face, once exposed.

However, with this increased liberty, we have proportionally increased our responsibility and our need for an acceleration of the evolution of consciousness and the values spheres to levels that will reduce our negative impact on those around us, the environment, future generations, and our very selves. However, if we are to avoid the use of force, we must do this though education, encouragement, and by becoming more aware as consumers and supporting those companies with leaders who are consciously mindful on their impact. Or, we can use the force and forceful apparatus of government, but we need to at least be honest about what we are doing: using our local, state, and federal representatives to impose our will and value sets on those around us with courts and police–who have guns–because we are impatient and self-righteous.

Is that the kind of world we want to advocate? Or would we rather raise the conscious stage to universal care voluntarily?

“An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.”– Thomas Jefferson

“…since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter madness to speak of a free people’s state.”–Marx

We have defined both “spiritual” and “capitalism”. What then, is “Spiritual Capitalism”?! Spiritual Capitalism really requires no knowledge or even acceptance of the above, although it is certainly helpful to you to do so. What is required for Spiritual Capitalism is an integral approach—that is, integration of your spirituality and entrepreneurship or the free market. It is that simple.

What a shame that most are dis-integrated. That is, they live separated lives. They go to a job they hate getting paid by people they do not like or by companies that lack integrity. Some have said that the idea that I charge for the work I do is “wrong with the universe”. Which is more out of alignment with the “universe”:

1. Living your spiritual purpose and getting paid for it voluntarily though exchange with clients seeking your services
2. Working for AOL and having to shower when you get home because of the slimy dealings you had to witness in the marketing department and getting paid for that

You be the judge.

The Buddha spoke of “right livelihood” as part of morality. That is, be certain that what you are doing does not harm others or assist others in harming others. The cleanest and clearest way to be fully integrated is to live your spiritual purpose [which is always about being in service to Other or the world] and market that service with integrity and clarity.

What a beautiful world we could create together. A world of people living their highest purpose and exhibiting their highest values—contributing to one another in the deepest way–and being in service of Spirit while simultaneously attaining prosperity as a result. Fully integrated beings.

To do that there are five simple components:

1. Live life consciously
2. Discover your [Spiritual] Purpose
3. Develop an Entrepreneurial Spirit
4. Define Your Values and Change Beliefs Where Necessary
5. Knowledge and Skill Acquisition

We will explore each of them in the coming installments of this series as well as the common blocks to achieving prosperity through purpose.

For other interesting I.D.E.A.s, visit me here.

Over at the inestimable jewel’s place you can check out this round up of all things anti-globalization today.

The round up is good, but go for the picture of Mama Moonbat at the bottom of the post. I think this woman has milked it for about all it is worth. Someone please let her know she is embarrassing herself at this point. Sheehan–not Malkin. Just to be clear.

I don’t always agree with everything that the Washington Post’s George Will writes. But I certainly appreciate and applaud the fact that he, essentially, “gets it.”

Take this excerpts from today’s column “Paralyzed by Collectivism” (see, right there — fantastic title):

The unending argument in political philosophy concerns constantly adjusting society’s balance between freedom and equality. The primary goal of collectivism — of socialism in Europe and contemporary liberalism in America — is to enlarge governmental supervision of individuals’ lives. This is done in the name of equality.

People are to be conscripted into one large cohort, everyone equal (although not equal in status or power to the governing class) in their status as wards of a self-aggrandizing government. Government says the constant enlargement of its supervising power is necessary for the equitable or efficient allocation of scarce resources.

Therefore, one of the collectivists’ tactics is to produce scarcities, particularly of what makes modern society modern — the energy requisite for social dynamism and individual autonomy. Hence collectivists use environmentalism to advance a collectivizing energy policy. They stress the environmental hazards of finding, developing, transporting or using oil, natural gas, coal or nuclear power.

Will’s piece today addresses environmentalism and energy production. It’s a very worthwhile — if brief — read. So by all means, go read the whole thing.

I should not even be surprised by this kind of appalling misuse of funds any more, but I always am.

Un-fucking-believable.

over at the Hess Report via Glenn.

Of course, I agree with the analysis of the problem, but not with the whole of the solution recommended.

You can read this book [PDF 2.3 MB] on exactly HOW to begin doing this–that is, really solve the problems of government being out of control and congress-people being subject to bribery or influence peddling through PACs, etc. , etc.

Here is a jewel by Murray Rothbard, one of the most persuasive of all Libertarian thinkers of any time. The Ethics of Liberty [PDF 7.3M]. This book was freely distributed by the Ludwig von Mises Institute a while back.

Not enough can be said about Murray Rothbard and his contributions to Austrian Economics and Libertarian thinking.

From the Introduction by Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

In an age of intellectual hyperspecialization, Murray N. Rothbard was a grand system builder. An economist by profession, Rothbard was
the creator of a system of social and political philosophy based on economics and ethics as its cornerstones. For centuries, economics and
ethics (political philosophy) had diverged from their common origin into seemingly unrelated intellectual enterprises. Economics was a value-free “positive” science, and ethics (if it was a science at all) was a “normative” science.

As a result of this separation, the concept of property had increasingly disappeared from both disciplines. For economists, property sounded
too normative, and for political philosophers property smacked of mundane economics. Rothbard’s unique contribution is the rediscovery of
property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.

He is also one of the clearest thinkers and writers I have ever read. This book is a must read for anyone with the call to liberty in their bones.

Also from the intro:

When The Ethics of Liberty appeared in 1982, it initially attracted only a little attention in academia. Two factors were responsible for this
neglect. First, there were the anarchistic implications of Rothbard’s theory, and his argument that the institution of government-the state-is
incompatible with the fundamental principles of justice. As defined by Rothbard, a state is an organization “which possesses either or both (in actual fact, almost always both) of the following characteristics: (a) it acquires its revenue by physical coercion (taxation); and (b) it achieves a compulsory monopoly of force and of ultimate decision-making power over a given territorial area. Both of these essential activities of the
State necessarily constitute criminal aggression and depredation of the just rights of private property of its subjects (including
self-ownership). For the first constitutes and establishes theft on a grand scale; while the second prohibits the free competition
of defense and decision-making agencies within a given territorial area-prohibiting the voluntary purchase and sale
of defense and judicial services (p. 172-73).

“Without justice,” Rothbard concluded as St. Augustine had before him, “the state was nothing but a band of robbers.”

What was the second reason?

Rothbard, as every reader of the following treatise will quickly recognize, was the prototype of a “coercive philosopher” (in the startling Nozickian definition of coercion). He demanded and presented proofs and exact and complete answers rather then tentative explanations, conjectum, and open questions. Regarding Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick had written that “some may feel that the truth about ethics and political philosophy is too serious and important to be obtained by such ‘flashy’ tools.”

T his was certainly Rothbard’s conviction. Because man cannot not act as long as he is alive, and he must use scarce means to do so, he must also permanently choose between right and wrong conduct. The fundamental question of ethics-what am I here and now rightfully allowed to do and what not is thus the most permanent, important, and pressing intellectual concern confronting man. Whenever and wherever one acts, an actor must be able to determine and distinguish unambiguously and instantly right from wrong. Thus, any ethic worth its salt must-praxeologically-be a “coercive” one, because only proofs and knockdown arguments can provide such definite answers as are necessary. Man cannot temporarily suspend acting; hence, tentative conjectures and open questions simply are not up to the task of a human ethic.

Rothbard’s “coercive” philosophizing-his insistence that ethics must be an axiomatic-deductive system, an ethic more geometrico-was nothing
new or unusual, of course. As already noted, Rothbard shared this view concerning the nature of ethics with the entire tradition of rationalist
philosophy. His had been the dominant view of Christian rationalism and of the Enlightenment. Nor did Rothbard claim infallibility regarding
his ethics. In accordance with the tradition of rationalist philosophy he merely insisted that axiomatic-deductive arguments can be attacked, and
possibly refuted, exclusively by other arguments of the same logical status (just as one would insist, without thereby claiming infallibility for
logicians and mathematicians, that logical or mathematical proofs can be attacked only by other logical or mathematical arguments).

He was a big meanie, apparently. Meanie in this day and age is what used to be known as “clear, solid, rational, deductive”, etc.

I am not officially sick to fucking death of this President. Jesus H fucking Christ on a Crutch!!!, as my dear old dad used to say.

Bush has named a new Fed Chief:

U.S. President George Bush has chosen one of his top economic advisers, Ben Bernanke, to succeed Alan Greenspan as head of the powerful Federal Reserve.

Bush announced the appointment at the White House Monday afternoon, flanked by Bernanke and Greenspan. His appointment must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, but a smooth confirmation hearing is expected.

Bernanke is currently the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and was long considered a favourite to replace Greenspan. He was a member of the Fed’s board of governors from August 2002 until this past June and is widely respected.

Thank God he’s not an old drinking buddy from Texas.

In his remarks at the White House Monday, Bernanke pledged no sudden change in Fed monetary policies.

“If I am confirmed to this position, my first priority will be to maintain continuity with the policies and policy strategies established during the Greenspan years,” he said.

Bush praised Bernanke’s record, saying he “commands deep respect in the global financial community.” U.S. stock markets rallied when reports of Bernanke’s selection began circulating.

Apparently, Bernanke was one of the people to push for more openness around Fed policy and direction. We like that.

Cox and Forkum sum up W’s no tax and spend ways. Here’s the toon:

Be sure to read the rest of their entry at the link.

I have long been frustrated with activists, politicians and policy makers who seek, support, and pass legislation with the intention of producing some economic result that ends of producing the very opposite effect. Price controls are just one example. Hawaii’s recent choice to put price caps on wholesale gas will create shortages. Period. Other problems are numerous with price controls. But the bottom line is that they simply harm the consumer while politicos get to say they “did something”. For a brief treatment of this, go here. For a thorough and thoroughly readable treatment on economics, I recommend Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics: the Antidote for Idiocy A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy.

In addition to the general public and activist and politicos, we now know that the problem of economic common sense in this Country is in the sorry condition it is because basic economic reasoning is not taught well, if at all, and the very people who teach economics do not possess it.

A recent study [PDF] found that 78% of economists gave the wrong answer to a simple economic question of opportunity costs. Many of these economists were professionals or doctorates. All of them from top-30 programs in the Country. This is stunning. Here is a New York Times column on the study and the issue.

With increasing economic legislation and regulation and increasing demand for gov’t intervention into all parts of our lives including economics, it would be kinda nice if they were actually educated on solid principles of basic economic reasoning, dontcha think?. This affects all of us, people.

From the TechCentralStation piece linked to above:

“Some analysts warn move may spur supply problems.”

Really? Only “some”? Maybe they need to be more careful about which “analysts” they listen to. Whatever would we do without those other “analysts”?

Imagine the headlines, “Legislature Mandates Pi To Equal 3.00000 — Some Analysts Warn Move May Spur Engineering Problems,” or “King Canute Commands Tide To Recede — Some Analysts Warn Move May Spur Wet Footwear Problems.” What would we think of the analysts who thought that the proposed mandates were no problem, perfectly in consonance with the laws of physics and human nature? Even most people with typical journalism educations would recognize such heads and subheads as the jokes they are, but somehow when it comes to basic economics, the laws of supply and demand, and the function of prices in a market economy bizarrely remain subjects for public debate.

Bizarre indeed.

And I prefer this analogy: it’s as if the Senate and the House were to pass legislation to temporarily ban gravity to give relief to the airline industry through the increased fuel efficiency they would enjoy.

This is what Hawaii is effectively doing. Laughing in the face of objective reality.

The next time you want something done about something, ask yourself if you are certain you understand for yourself [not from this party's propaganda or that party's propaganda or some questionable study that buttresses your pre-determined opinion] the dynamics at play, the underlying principles being demonstrated, etc. What it means to get legislation passed is that you are voting or asking your representative to vote for the authorization of the use of force against your neighbor. Be it police action to enforce the new statute or be it the use of force though increased taxation [gov't sponsored theft] it is force.

Are you certain you are clear enough and confident enough in your reasoning to support that? Have you considered under what conditions the use of force is just? Have you ever denied evidence that contradicted your position and shrugged it off or rejected it out of hand?

Even before Katrina, this article was relevant for the stunning display of ignorance around gas prices by many:

With every disaster or crisis, it seems that the public, press and politicians require a remedial course in Economics 101. In fact, apparently we need an ongoing educational campaign even when there is no catastrophe, as demonstrated by the recent foolish legislation in the state of Hawaii to cap wholesale fuel prices. Note the subhead in the linked story: “Some analysts warn move may spur supply problems.”

Really? Only “some”? Maybe they need to be more careful about which “analysts” they listen to. Whatever would we do without those other “analysts”?

 

Imagine the headlines, “Legislature Mandates Pi To Equal 3.00000 — Some Analysts Warn Move May Spur Engineering Problems,” or “King Canute Commands Tide To Recede — Some Analysts Warn Move May Spur Wet Footwear Problems.” What would we think of the analysts who thought that the proposed mandates were no problem, perfectly in consonance with the laws of physics and human nature? Even most people with typical journalism educations would recognize such heads and subheads as the jokes they are, but somehow when it comes to basic economics, the laws of supply and demand, and the function of prices in a market economy bizarrely remain subjects for public debate.

Go and read it all at Tech Central Station

Over at Atlas Shrugs:

IRNA, the regime’s news agency reports that the disciplinary forces of the regime’s central intelligence issued a statement today, stating that: “As of Monday, these forces will meet very forcefully with wedding parties or any sort of celebration, that is disturbing and impinging on society’s order and calm.” The bulletin also read: “Certain people in their celebrations, immorally and degenerately block traffic (wedding processions) and disturb the peace of our compatriots; these people will be strongly dealt with.”

Khamnei: “These ‘goods’ will have to remain in their wrapping”

Mullah Khamnei specified, in a speech broadcast by ILNA, one of the regime’s many media outlets, that men are superior to women. While referring to women as “goods” or “commodities”, he stated: “Women’s hijab must be much more severe than those of men’s. Why? Because nature and women’s softness was at the core of ‘creation’ and IF we do not want society to lead to corruption and degenerate, we must keep these “goods” in their wrapping.”

And there’s a whole lot more like that.

Intel’s new chip design developed in Israel   
Get ready for even faster computers. Intel has unveiled its next generation micro-architecture, a multi-core processor which was completely developed at its facilities in Israel. According to top analysts, the Israeli design approach is sweeping through Intel, making them the company’s pre-eminent architects. More…

 

Global Democracy | US and Israel celebrate 20 years of free trade   
Twenty years and nearly $400 billion later, the US-Israel free trade pact is flourishing. Thanks to the bilateral trade agreement, Jaffa oranges have been replaced by other Israeli exports like computer chips and life-saving diagnostic tools that benefit the health and welfare of Americans. More…

 

Health | Israeli biotech leader asked by Cystic Fibrosis Foundation to develop treatment   
The Israeli biotechnology company Predix is already working on novel drugs for depression and Alzheimer’s in the pipeline. Now the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has turned to them to develop potential treatments for this debilitating genetic disease that affects 30,000 Americans. More…

And a while lot more…check it here.

…is no friend to free markets. I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Gaza pullout reaction.

Check it here and here.

Stunning. Leave Jooooooo! But give us jobs and healthcare. Charles Johsnon said it best: “we need a word for this kind of gall”. Indeed.

Here we are again, talking about wonderful Government UNIONS, once more.

When will we as a body politic ever LEARN? Geez. I mean, we make some progress, things seem to get moving in a positive direction, and then something like this smacks us square in the face.

In a nutshell, San Francisco Public School “Service Workers” (janitors, cafeteria workers and the like) are threatening to hold the School District hostage, going on strike for more pay even as the start of the school year approaches. San Francisco Teachers are threatening to join the strike, delaying the start of school for tens of thousands of San Francisco schoolchildren.

Now, in order to pay for these raises for the janitors and cafeteria workers, the San Francisco School Board is seriously considering raiding a special fund, approved by voters, which gave $13 million to the schools for things like sports, arts college and career counselling and other “enrichment activites” for kids.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the SFUSD fire any and all “service workers” who walk out. Period. Immediately hire replacements for all staff thus terminated.

Remember, it’s “all about the children.”

The public watchdog group SFSOS has it right:

School support staff threaten strike; teachers may join in

If you suffer through as many School Board meetings as we do, you’ll often hear politicos drone on about their pet project and claim that it’s good for the children, and, after all, “It’s all about the children.” Sometimes, like today, it’s becomes crystal clear who’s looking out for the children, and who’s looking out for the adults.

As the handful of families who remain in San Francisco are just weeks from the start of school, the teachers union is threatening to join SEIU’s service workers in a strike that would shut down K-12 education for 58,000 public school children. Threatening our children’s education unless we get pay raises. Who’s for the children here?

Despite the well-known financial struggles the School District has been enduring — the layoffs, the program cuts, the school closures — SEIU Local 790, which represents school support staff such as custodians and cafeteria workers, is demanding more money. Should they strike (they’ll vote on that in early September), the teachers themselves are likely to join. This might be the first strike ever sponsored by the Marin County Realtors Association.

To further undermine the confidence in our schools, and for that matter our confidence in our government as a whole, there is talk that a $13 million advance the City has provided the School District could go to pay for these raises. That $13 million is Prop H money. Remember Prop H? The crux of Prop H money — what voters endorsed — was funding for school enrichment programs. One-third was to go to sports, arts and libraries. One-third was to go to preschool and related programs. The final one-third was to be allocated to “…gifted and talented programs, magnet programs, literacy programs, dual-language immersion programs, special education, employee compensation, career and college centers at high schools, teacher mentoring or master teacher programs, or other instructional purposes.”

Now, while that tiny little reference to “employee compensation” among all those important programs certainly allows the Prop. H money to be used to pay salaries, absolutely everyone who supported Prop. H (like SOS and so many of our members) knew that all of the Prop. H money was supposed to be for more programs. The whole point was that taxpayers wanted the School District to have additional enrichment programs for the children, not additional enrichment for the adults already in the same programs. Voters weren’t asked to increase funding for the status quo. They passed Prop H to get more, not to get more of the same.

And, in an interesting contrast (that we’re so used to seeing), Schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman and Board of Ed President Eric Mar vary greatly on their respective approach to the strike. Ackerman is the negotiating diplomat: “If there is any way I can support [Local 790's] issues without putting the district in any kind of fiscal jeopardy, I will do that,” the Examiner quoted her as saying. Mar, on the other hand — the president who should be leading a balanced dialogue toward a fiscally responsible end, is instead flying the extremist solidarity flag and sending out emails rallying protesters to mobilize on behalf of Local 790. Gee, is that “All About the Children” or “All About Mar’s 2008 District 1 Supervisor Campaign”? We think Richmond District parents will remember that Mar’s slogan as Board President has been “It’s all about my endorsements.”

Police and firefighters are prohibited by law from striking due to the threat to life that such a strike would cause. Teachers striking ought to take a close second on such a severity scale. But since it is not illegal, public outrage is all that protects us from such an irresponsible and damaging action. Your outrage should be doubled since the teacher’s union isn’t even involved in the financial negotiations. They’re threatening to strike just because it’s called for under their “you scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours” union boss solidarity pact.”

Please write a letter to the Board of Education, urging them to denounce the potential strike by the SEIU Local 790 and by the teachers’ union

Once in a while I run across a quote by someone I am familiar with while doing a seemingly unrelated Google search. This one is from a professor who was interpreting Dr Thomas Sowell– a man whose work I greatly respect, but whose tone I cringe at. Anyway, in the current “judicial activism” conversation, I find this illuminating:

Justice means adherence to agreed upon rules the violation of which deranges the expectations of others and adversely changes their future conduct as they lose confidence in the general reliability of existing and future rules and agreements. Justice derives its importance from the need to preserve society through the provision of general principles. Sowell explains that men will suffer more by a breakdown of order than by some injustices. What is involved is a trade-off between individual justice and the social benefits of certainty. Judicial activism would derange the whole process. A better verdict may be reached in a specific case but at the cost of damaging the consistency and predictability of the law. There cannot be a law-abiding society if no one knows in advance what laws they are to obey but must wait for judges to create ex post facto legal rulings based on evolving standards rather than known rules. The losses of poorer judicial decisions are offset against the prospective guidance of known rules leading to fewer criminal law violations or needs for civil litigation. General stability of expectations and standards are more important than the particular benefits of wisdom and virtue. A judge should therefore apply the rules even if in the specific instance the known consequences will appear to be undesirable. 
  
Law exists to preserve society. It follows that criminal justice is concerning with deterring crime, not with finely adjusting punishments to the individual. Sowell explains that law represents the evolved and codified experience of all men who have ever lived – it is the experience of the many, rather than the wisdom of the few. 

While it is a sprawling analysis of Sowell, you can read it all here if that sort of thing interests you.

…are a fundamental human right. So says Walter Williams. I am inclined to agree.

Eric Christen, executive director of the statewide Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction, wonderful piece in the Sunday _Chronicle_ on the big walkout from the AFL-CIO, that’s now gotten even bigger, with more and more Unions choosing to split from the big national labor federation

As I’ve said before, let’s hope it spells the end of destructive “Unionism” as we’ve known it:

With the collapse of socialism and the rise of the information-and- technology age, along with the dynamic, interconnected world economy it represents, leftists like Sweeney (a card-carrying member of the American Socialist Party) have determined that the only way for unionism to survive at all is for two things to occur: force non-union workers to join unions, while making them pay for the pleasure; and encourage huge government growth, thereby creating more union jobs. To accomplish this, Sweeney has hitched his horse to the Democrat Party in no uncertain terms.

Sadly, this trend has come at the expense of the very workers the union claims to represent. For instance, despite the fact that the unions give so heavily to the Democrat Party, 43 percent of union workers themselves voted for President Bush in 2004, according to exit poll data. Though the National Labor Relations Act empowers unions to provide on-the-job representation for workers in terms of wages, benefits and working conditions, the union bosses of today prefer instead to serve as mouthpieces for an activist, radical political agenda.

It’s not a long piece, but it makes some other excellent points, so be sure to check out the whole thing.

We’ve made the point around here before — there’s nothing inherently wrong (and in fact there is quite a bit right, in principle) with workers organizing into Unions. But such organizations — like all organizations — can become corrupt and self-serving and coercive and anti-democratic and basically counterproductive. And it seems fairly clear that there is a lot wrong with the way Unions currently work in our political and economic system today.

Perhaps with the breakup of the AFL-CIO and (hopefully) the passage later this year of California’s “Paycheck Protection” Union reform measure, organized labor is (slowly, contentiously) turning a corner and evolving into a more positive, moderate force.

If organized labor doesn’t evolve, Christen says, it may not survive, “and rightly so.”

Amen.

California Conservative offers some thoughts on the SEIU and Teamsters Unions splitting off from the big AFL-CIO labor organization. This means that the the AFL-CIO has lost 3.2 million of its previous 13 million or so members.

From the Wall Street Journal:

…we are witnessing a fight over who gets to preside over a declining labor movement. Two of the largest and more successful unions, the Service Employees International and the Teamsters, are rebelling against the leadership of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. The irony is that it wasn’t all that long ago, in 1995, that Mr. Sweeney won his job with his own coup against Lane Kirkland, the Cold War hero and more moderate labor voice.

In the wake of the GOP takeover of Congress the year before, Mr. Sweeney promised to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into electoral politics to stop the Gingrich revolution. He staffed AFL-CIO headquarters with activists from the political left–environmental groups, culturally liberal outfits–and made the union consortium a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

A decade later we can see how that turned out. Democrats remain in the House and Senate minority, and union membership continues to decline across the American economy. The unionized share of the total U.S. work force has been sliding steadily for years, and was down again last year to 12.5% from 12.9% in 2003. In the more dynamic private sector, only 7.9% of employees now carry the union label.

Yes, and if you take a close look at the curves on the chart above, you’ll see that a much greater percentage of all Government workers — approximately 35% — are Unionized than are workers in the “real world” private sector (8%). One might conclude that it’s the Government Unions that are keeping the labor “movement” alive, to the extent that it IS still alive.

And, of course, those Government Unions are supported with our tax dollars.

The Wall Street Journal piece says it clearly:

The tragedy is that neither [union] faction is offering an agenda that will make workers more prosperous in our increasingly competitive global economy.

Precisely. And as far as serving the taxpayers and businesses of our nation is concerned, it must be asked: are Government Unions helping or harming the cause of more efficient and effective Governenmental operations? Are we getting “bang for our bucks?” And, really, is this the best we can do for workers? Government Unions — extorting from the public they ostensibly “serve?”

The recent BART transit strike brinksmanship is an object lesson, and quite fresh in our collective memory.

I suggest that perhaps it’s time to move beyond the old adversarial class-warfare Union-versus-management model. Surely we can do better than what we’ve got, now. And I think it’s clear, we’re going to have to. The old style Union model is dying out.

Has another Great piece out:

First the terrorists of the Middle East went after the Israelis. From 1967 we witnessed 40 years of bombers, child murdering, airline hijacking, suicide murdering, and gratuitous shooting. We in the West usually cried crocodile tears, and then came up with all sorts of reasons to allow such Middle Eastern killers a pass.

Yasser Arafat, replete with holster and rants at the U.N., had become a “moderate” and was thus free to steal millions of his good-behavior money. If Hamas got European cash, it would become reasonable, ostracize its “military wing,” and cease its lynching and vigilantism.

When some tried to explain that Wars 1-3 (1947, 1956, 1967) had nothing to do with the West Bank, such bothersome details fell on deaf ears.

When it was pointed out that Germans were not blowing up Poles to get back lost parts of East Prussia nor were Tibetans sending suicide bombers into Chinese cities to recover their country, such analogies were caricatured.

When the call for a “Right of Return” was making the rounds, few cared to listen that over a half-million forgotten Jews had been cleansed from Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, and lost billions in property.

When the U.N. and the EU talked about “refugee camps,” none asked why for a half-century the Arab world could not build decent housing for its victimized brethren, or why 1 million Arabs voted in Israel, but not one freely in any Arab country.

The security fence became “The Wall,” and evoked slurs that it was analogous to barriers in Korea or Berlin that more often kept people in than out. Few wondered why Arabs who wished to destroy Israel would mind not being able to live or visit Israel.

Go and read it all for it is good.