. A blogumn by Brian Pelfrey Every decision you make is, in some sense, an economic one. Therefore, political differences tend to be economic disagreements, so I will confine the argument to these. A Conservative is a person who defends that which is against that which is coming, perceiving invasion rather than progress. A Liberal tends to assail that which is with that which is coming, intending progress rather than aggression. There was a time when wealth was a thing to be inherited, plundered, or received as a favor; and those who possessed it did so by bloodline, warfare, or political influence. Conservatives protected the status of the privileged, while Liberals argued for the upward economic mobility of the lower classes. With Capitalism came the era when wealth could be created. This led to political democracy, social mobility, and a higher living standard. Capitalism was a handmaid to freedom. In this new economy, the Old Liberals became conservatives, and defended the right of the talented to enjoy the benefits of their ability, calling it “Meritocracy” (influence wielded by the deserving). Liberalism shifted also. Liberals were now those who declared that wealth distribution ought never to be based upon ability, but upon human need. They wished to replace meritocracy with “Social Justice”. Today, Conservatives view the Soviet system as the ultimate distillation of social justice, resulting in mass murder and death by starvation under a brutal tyranny. Liberals do not want to resurrect the USSR; they merely wish that the more gifted would fulfill a charitable human debt to the underprivileged. The reason Conservatives defend the meritocracy against the onslaught of “Charit-ocracy” is the fear that the Soviet plague will revisit us in spite of the best of Liberal intentions. Conservatives see the majority voting...
Fierce Conservative: The “Evils” of Capitalism
posted by Brian Pelfrey
. A blogumn by Brian Pelfrey We learned the basics in elementary school; two plus two equals four, George Washington was the Father of our country, and…what else? Oh yeah! The Transcontinental Railroad was a triumph of the American can-do spirit. We heard about Chinese laborers struggling to build the Central Pacific Railroad over the mountains, of Union soldiers working alongside freed slaves to lay track across the plains. We were told of the glorious meeting in Promontory, Utah, of the famed Golden Spike that symbolically–and actually–joined them, and of the opening of the west. The story can still bring us to tears. Of course, we now realize that the towns through which this project traveled were either non-existent or not economical for rail service. The railroad’s primary owners were the recipients of government grants and subsidies, legislators and their friends got their hands into the purse, the track was poorly laid and had to be almost entirely rebuilt, cost overruns were epic, the railroad was often unserviceable, inordinate numbers of workers died in the making of it, and after multiple failures and sell-offs, the Union Pacific-Central Pacific has never operated profitably. Ghost towns, successive bankruptcies, and congressional corruption–these are the fruit of collectivism; and yet this project is remembered as a shining example of “what Americans can do collectively when we put our minds to it.” Sure. We learned little or nothing in school about the other transcontinental railroad. The Great Northern was built through towns in need of rail shipping, based on the viability of their markets, was privately funded, connected the Great Lakes to the Puget Sound, operates at a profit to this day, and single-handedly built the city of Seattle. The problem with the Great Northern was the lack of...
Fierce Conservative: Saving The Mercury
posted by Brian Pelfrey
/ A blogumn by Brian Pelfrey Let’s imagine that your town is blessed with two motion picture theaters, each at one end of Main St. The first is called “The Galaxy Theater.” The Galaxy runs the films everyone is dying to see, and serves the best popcorn in town. But everyone you talk to says that the admission price is too high and that the popcorn is overpriced as well. And yet…the Galaxy is filled to capacity for every showing, and they always run out of popcorn. This suggests that patrons are willing (in spite of their grumblings) to pay the price in order to enjoy the experience. If the owner of the Galaxy were to lower his prices, he could not get more people in to see the movies, since the seats are already packed out. Instead, he would have longer lines outside, as well as at the snack counter, diminishing both his profitability and the quality of the experience. His staff would be doing more work while the establishment made less money. Results might include the inability to secure the most popular films, inability to keep the restrooms clean, and the necessity of using less-than-delicious popcorn. Soon, there would be empty seats, and customers would say, “That place used to be nice, but now it’s a dive.” So you see it is in the best interest of everyone for the owner to charge as much as people are willing to pay. The other theater in town is called “The Mercury.” It is an old building where second-rate films are shown to listless audiences in dirty, ripped seats munching stale popcorn. The Mercury is widely praised for its $1 ticket price and ten-cent bags of popcorn, but it is poorly attended, filthy, and...
Fierce Republican: The Missing Headline
posted by Brian Pelfrey
. A blogumn by Brian Pelfrey I am perusing the newspaper archives from all over the universe going back to the days of the Galactic Empire for a headline that says: “Black Market in Recession–Illegal Lenders Near Collapse, Underworld Economists Say.” I am about to give up the search (well…there’s always The Onion). But seriously, what is the missing ingredient that allows illegal financial systems to thrive without fear of global implosion? It would be instructive to ask ourselves: Why is the underground economy an illegal economy? Answer: Because the government says it is. And why is that? Because its secrecy keeps the government from regulating, controlling, and taxing it; keeps politicians from appointing their friends to lucrative positions on related regulatory agencies; and avoids the tawdry spectacle of having to lobby Congress in self-defense. Does that mean that the underground economy is morally good? No, because it is also notorious for attracting violent criminals and danger. Which is why the role of Government in the economy should be the same as its role elsewhere; to prevent people from hurting each other through violence, theft and fraud. This brings us to the housing market, which was disrupted by bad loans, which originated with poor risk-assessment by lenders, which was created by government pressure to give home loans to voting blocks such as “the underprivileged” and other constituencies. Would this give us the massive disaster that we see now? Not necessarily. But the collapse in banking became worldwide when lenders tried to create nuclear fission using other people’s money as fuel. The so-called “derivative products” that created so much make-believe wealth on paper were commission-creating, stock-inflating, profit-reporting engines for banks and corporations. What could be more fraudulent than the sale and resale–indeed, the perpetual auctioneering–of...