Sunday, November 15, 2015

I Did Not Believe It Possible, but Democrats have gotten worse

I did not believe it was possible, but the Democratic Party actually managed to get worse in the last few years.

Old people like me can remember Bill Clinton's second term. During his second term, Clinton moved toward the center and things started getting better.

I was hoping that Democratic Candidates, wanting to distance themselves from Obama's failures, would start looking to centrist solutions or even start considering free market solutions to our economic malaise.

Instead we see the half witted Bernie Sanders repeating the tired old rhetoric of Lenin and Mao 

Rather than seeking a common ground with the people of this nation, the Democratic Debate last night showed a ruling elite that's become even more isolated and detached from reality and the economic needs of the people.

The people are not in need of more government buildings, regulations and bureaucrats. The people need real economic opportunities.

One does not create economic opportunity through greater economic centralization.

Political and economic centralization was the driving theme of the three candidates.

For example, Hillary Clinton advocated limiting the role that state's play in health care because she hates the governor of Iowa.

The Democratic Candidates believe that raising the minimum wage will some how solve the problem of chronic unemployment. (Hint, raising the base cost of labor will make it harder to hire people and increase chronic unemployment.)

The debaters want us to believe that socialism is something new and untried.

When will the people of this nation realize that socialism is the tired old ideology that has failed the people of this world time and time again?

The ideals of freedom advocated by the founders and advanced in the early days the US are the shining ideas that can lead to widespread prosperity.

Socialism is a failed ideology. Socialism traces to an ideology created by King Frederic the Great called "enlightened absolutism." Enlightened Socialism is a reformulation of an ideology called "The Divine Right of Kings."

The basic idea of King Frederic was the monarchy (ie the state) was the driving force of economics and that society could achieve an egalitarian utopia through political centralization. Once the state achieves absolute political centralization, a social contract will form between the state and people leading to Utopian egalitarianism.

The reality of the socialist state is that the political centralization led to a state of massive disenfranchisement of the people and often leads to mass starvation. Hundreds of millions died under Lenin and Marx despite the fact that both were skilled at left wing rhetoric.

Now, I have to admit, enlightened absolutism makes for some great rhetoric. Populist political candidates have learned to use the rhetoric to make political centralization appear appealing.

But that rhetoric is false. Economic and political centralization march hand in hand. Despite promises of egalitarianism, the people in the centralized state become wealthy and those on the outside become disenfranchised both politically and economically.

I can actually prove this mathematically, but it takes a fairly large data set and time.

I was hoping that, by the end of Obama's second term, Democrats would start piecing together that the growing disparities in our culture are due to the political centralization.

But, The Democratic Party seems intent on proving that people are stupid and that left wing zealots can spend their entire life supporting an ideology of despotism while being completely unaware that the growing inequality in our nation is due to the despotism that they zealously support.

There is a small segment of the Democratic Party that holds to the ideals of liberty.

The segment is small and shrinking, but there is always a hope that it might gain influence. This segment is actually better at enabling free market reforms than the GOP.

Some readers might remember the second term of Bill Clinton's Administration.

During his second term, Clinton attempted to head toward the center and things were starting to get better as a result.

Unfortunately, the Clintons have a Marxian understanding of economics. The defining legislation of Clinton's second term was a thing called  "The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000."

This act passed in a lame duck session and signed by Bill Clinton created the derivatives market that played a leading role in crashing the economy in 2006.

Karl Marx wrote a huge tome on economics called "Das Kapital."

Clinton's "Commodity and Futures Modernization Act" is counter to the economic ideals of the classical liberals who see the economic activities of individuals as the driving force in the economy, but fits, to a tee, the economic model envisioned in Das Kapital.

As Clinton proved, most people on the left have a truly twisted ideas about the free market. People with twisted ideas about the free market are incapable of enacting viable free market reform.

Clinton's Security Modernization Act created an unregulated derivatives market. The failure in Clinton's thinking is that derivatives are an anti-market contrivance which were designed by Wall Street to regulate the stock market. Deregulating derivatives created a unregulated regulator. Instead of creating economic stability, the unregulated regulator amplified economic faults and turned what should have been a minor economic correction into a catastrophic economic event.

The fact that the Bill Clinton's attempt to deregulate the derivatives market blew up in our face does not nullify the argument that Clinton's turn to the right started to improve things. Clinton simply proved that stupid ideas passed in the name of the free market are still stupid ideas.

What our nation needs at this point in history is for groups to develop reforms based on a classical liberal understand of economics.

The classical liberal idea of economics is based on the idea that individual people are the driving force of economics.

(In contrast Marx sees pools of capital as the driving economic force. BTW, a market built on the ideas of Das Kapital is called "capitalism." Marx's Capitalism is almost as bad as Marx's Communism.)

I guess this aside leads into the second great problem our nation is facing.

Conservative Republicans have become enamored with Marx's Capitalism.

Just as Clinton is incapable of passing viable free market reforms, Conservatives are incapable of defining viable economic reforms as well.

Conservatism, as I am sure you are all aware, is the ideology of the Conservative Party.

The Conservative was created by Sir Robert Pool at the request of King William IV as an effort to rebrand the Tory Party in 1831.

The Tories, as you may recall, were the people who leveled their muskets at the US Founders during the Revolutionary War.

The term "conservative" was taken from the French "conservatif" which referred to efforts to restore the French Monarchy after the Napoleonic Wars.

Watch BBC and you will see that members of the Conservative Party still proudly call themselves "Tories."

The driving goal of conservatism is to conserve the class structure of the ancient regime in an age of reform.

Conservatives captured the Republican Party in the 1960s in reaction to the Civil Rights Movement.

Conservatives tend to be driven by culture war issues and tend to be blind to the actual needs of the people.

As such, conservatives are equally incapable of enacting free market reform.

The problem with conservatism is that when we follow the economic understanding of Tories like Sean Hannity and Rupert Murdock's Fox News, we end up with Fascism which is essentially the same as socialism.

The Left/Right split has created a completely untenable political and economic situation for our nation.

So watching the leftward march of the Democrats following the failed policies of Obama has me truly worried for our nation's future.

No comments: