Posted tagged ‘Tyrannical Politicians’

Observations From The Margin

April 14, 2020

Observation Tower



-The “scientific” models for U.S. deaths from the coronavirus haven’t been correct yet. They have been revised down from 2.2 million to 200,000 to 100,000 to 75,000 and now it’s 60,000 which will no doubt be revised again. If “scientific” models, used to predict the future, are wrong by this much and in such a short time, we should be skeptical of “experts” who hold up their models as “science”. Because science is a process used to disprove theories and models. But “experts” use the phrase “scientific models” to give their theories and models credibility without being scrutinized.

-Here is a model:  I have a tee time in the spring at 7:30. It is 42 degrees when I tee off. At the turn it’s 50 degrees. When I leave the course at noon it is 62 degrees. So it should follow that it will be 106 degrees at 8:30 tonight.  Here is another model: The first round of golf you play this year was an 83. The second round you played you shot a 79. So by the time July rolls around you will be shooting in the 50’s.

-We can see why my models are not workable. Although they might make sense from a math standpoint. The variables in the models are just that, variable. They are not constant.

-In the coronavirus models the most important variable is each individual. But each individual is different in many areas. Each individual’s immune system is different. Each individual will assess the risk of his actions differently. And each individual may act differently tomorrow than how they acted today. How can you model variable variables?

-And by the way my brother is a chemist. He said he did modeling his whole career. He also said he could make a model say anything he wanted it to say.

-The “experts” can’t lose no matter what happens. They can safely say their policies worked to “flatten” the curve. Unfortunately their is no way to go back and try something else to find out what would have worked better. What if we had done what I suggested; Quarantine everyone who was in a risk group protecting them from the virus and let everyone else go about their business allowing the only weapon we have, each individual’s immune system, to fight the virus. If we would have done this, I could safely say my policies worked to flatten the curve. Why? because we wouldn’t have anything to compare it to.

-People are able to assess their own risk. “Experts” don’t possess enough information to make decisions for each individual. They can only put forth one size fits all solutions on individuals who are all different.

-“Experts” think they are smarter than all of us. They think the benighted masses are not capable of making decisions about our own safety. But let me ask you; What happens when a storm hits and stop lights aren’t working because the electric is out? Do wrecks happen at every intersection where the stop light is out? No. People don’t speed through a stop light that is not working. They approach each intersection cautiously. People don’t want to get in a wreck, get hurt, or die.



Bernie Sanders Drops Out As Campaign Goals Of Locking Everyone Up, Destroying Economy Already Achieved, at     Excerpt:      “As the coronavirus panic has already accomplished the aims of his socialistic policies, Sanders realized the country didn’t need his public service anymore. Unemployment has skyrocketed, grocery stores have empty shelves, and everyone is confined to their homes on penalty of arrest. This “idyllic paradise” is exactly what Sanders wanted in the first place, so he says he can leave the race satisfied that his vision has been achieved.”

“This once-in-a-lifetime deadly pandemic has already accomplished what socialism aims to do.”


Constitution Dies Of Coronavirus, at   Excerpt:     “According to sources at the National Archives, doctors rushed the United States Constitution to the hospital and were forced to hook the document up to a ventilator after it began having trouble breathing Sunday afternoon.”

“The document reportedly slipped into a coma en route to the emergency room and was in critical condition for many hours. Doctors confirmed the worst: the founding document of our nation was infected with the novel coronavirus. Finally, surrounded by one or two mourners, as most people in Washington abandoned it a long time ago, it slipped away Sunday night.”

“Between both political parties constantly trampling all over the Bill of Rights and stretching and distorting the Constitution for political gain whenever it’s convenient, I just don’t know how much more abuse it could have taken,” said one doctor as he pronounced the Constitution’s time of death: 20:20, ironically.”

“The 232-year-old Constitution has had its share of health scares, nearly being killed in the 1860s, the 1930s and 40s, and the early 2000s, but medical experts say this last crisis was just more than it could take.”

“It had many underlying conditions, of course, already being incredibly sick with Obamacare, Obergefell, Roe v Wade, the Patriot Act, and many more diseases,” said the doctor. “But it’s still sad to see this old boy pass on.”


Everyone Jumps Off Bridge After New Government Order Telling Everyone To Jump Off Bridge, at     Excerpt:    “…..a new order has been issued: everyone is to jump off a bridge immediately.”

A government official issued the order to solve our current crisis, and everyone immediately complied.”

“Everyone jump off a bridge,” said a representative of the government.

“OK,” said everyone. “If the government says so, it’s probably a good idea. Besides, what can we do? It’s the government. They definitely have the best people working on it.”

“The directive was designed to end coronavirus. Medical experts believe it’s the best, most effective way to stop the virus. Assuming everyone follows through and obeys the order, coronavirus will be wiped out, according to officials. There are no bad side effects, as far as anyone can tell.”


Civil Liberties Declared Nonessential, at   Excerpt:   “U.S.—As of this weekend, based on recommendations from the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, all civil liberties have been declared nonessential. The Department of Homeland Security released a statement declaring that any human rights outlined in such documents as the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the Bible are nonessential and will, therefore, be disregarded amid the outbreak of COVID-19.”

“After the outbreak is contained, health leaders say the rights may be reinstated in small increments but have made no guarantees.”

“I think we’re going to come out of this whole thing having woken up to the realization that liberty has been insanely overrated and it’s time to move on,” said California governor Gavin Newsom, who was quick to impose the guidelines on his state. “Human rights aren’t even real. Science can’t prove them.”


Liberal Treated With Hydroxychloroquine Hopes He Still Dies Of Covid-19 To Prove Trump Is Stupid, at  Excerpt:   “While Trump has been giving people hope that hydroxychloroquine could save lives, his political opponents have called it false hope and claimed Trump has no idea what he’s talking about. Walton, a lifelong Democrat and progressive, had joined in calling Trump “irresponsible” and an “ignoramus” and now has an opportunity to prove it by simply dying. “It’s such an opportunity, I don’t want to pass it up,” Walton said.”



Why Do We Give Political Power To The Economically Ignorant?

July 14, 2015


We can all agree that a person has to have a high degree of expertise and ability to become a doctor. But does this expertise and ability in this particular field make this person knowledgeable in another field like, repairing his car? It has always amazed me that we give a degree of papal infallibility to politicians to make decisions outside of their area of  expertise. They have expertise in politics, which means they have expertise in verbal sleight of hand, which means they are great at fudging the truth without sounding like they’re fudging the truth. If the only negative consequences of the actions of politicians was to enrich themselves, break some rules, get family members government jobs, and live off of tax payers dollars, we could all live with that. But the amount of damage they do to the economy in general and each person in particular is exponentially more costly.

Here are some short comprehensive quotes from Thomas Sowell about economics and politics that we should think about before we proceed with the rest of the post.

1) “People need to be aware of the dangers in letting economic decisions to be made through the political process”.

2) “Just as a poetic discussion of the weather is not meteorology, an issuance of moral pronouncements or political creeds about the economy is not economics.”

3) “What is politically defined as economic planning, is the forcible superseding of other people’s plans by government officials.”

4) “In political competition accurate knowledge has no decisive competitive advantage, because what is being sold is not an end result but a plausible belief about a complex process.”


one book with a mortar board, financial charts and a world globe, concept of faculty of economics (3d render) - Elements of this image furnished by NASA

In a speech today, Hillary Clinton, a noted Nobel Prize winning economist, presented some “unassailable” economic logic that I will attempt to logically assail. Here are some quotes from her speech, here and here.

“The evidence is in, inequality is a drag on our entire economy“.

Since all people have different skills and abilities, on the one hand, and value things differently, on the other, there is no possible way equality can exist. In fact, inequality helps drive our economy. Having different skills and desires allows each person to specialize in producing what they are skilled at producing. If I don’t have the skill or desire to produce food, it wouldn’t be good for me, or the economy, if I attempted to produced food. I can use my particular skill to specialize in producing something else and exchange it for food. When individuals specialize, more is produced while using less land, resources, time and capital. These excess resources and time can be used for other productive activities.

Mrs. Clinton should place the blame for inequality on consumers. Consumers decide what is a more important use of scarce resources and time based on what their value scales of consumption are. Trying to use government force to incentivize or constrain individual value scales, in the name of equality, lowers the over all wealth in an economy, which hurts everyone.

We have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can’t have one without the other.

I’m assuming she means individuals in government when she says “We”. Government politicians and bureaucrats can’t build an economy, they can only intervene in the economy. First lets define economy. An economy is what results when each individual freely decides what he will produce, consume, exchange and save. It is no more complicated than that. Mrs. Clinton, I hate to inform you but, as we discussed above, economic growth and fairness are mutually exclusive if fairness is defined as equality.

What does Mrs. Clinton mean when she uses the word fair? Fair is a word that doesn’t have to be defined by politicians because they know each person will place his own idea of “fair”, on what is being discussed. Using the weasel word “fair” is like giving each person a blank check to fill out. Politicians verbal sleight of hand plus the economic ignorance of the people, combine to produce the economic conditions that we are witnessing in Greece.

Wages need to rise to keep up with costs.

I assume the costs Mrs. Clinton is talking about are the costs of goods and services we consume. Does Mrs. Clinton’s political expertise allow her to understand that a wage is a cost factored into the process of producing goods or services that we consume? Peoples wages are not set by the altruism of an employer. Wages are set by the evil consumer. A business doesn’t add up all the costs of producing a good or service and then set the price hoping it will be met. An entrepreneur takes an educated risk that a good or service might command a certain price, and then sets out to produce that good or service at that price or lower. But there is no guarantee that he will get that price. The process of determining the value of labor starts with the consumer and moves backwards through the production process, and not the other way.

The law of supply and demand states that more will be demanded at the lower price than the higher price. And more will be supplied at the higher price than the lower price. Wages are set by this law, no matter how much politicians wish they shouldn’t be. Simply put, if you raise the price of labor above what the market will bear, there will be less labor demanded.

Most leftists think they can raise wages by decree and somehow that wage will be paid by the employer. Many conservatives think the cost of the wage will be passed on to the consumer. They are both wrong. If a good could bring in a higher amount of revenue at a higher price, it would already be priced at that level. The employer will have to figure out how to cut production costs before he raises prices, because the law of supply and demand says less will be sold at the higher price, and he doesn’t want to sell less. One of the first things he will look to cut is labor costs. This is why artificially raising the minimum wage above its market value leads to unemployment for minimum wage workers. Intervention into the economy by political do gooders, the economically ignorant, or tyrannical politicians, results in the same outcome. Their intentions don’t matter, the economic reality of their interventions matter.


Here are some quotes that show the arrogance of politicians in general and Mrs. Clinton in particular.

“This on demand, or so-called gig economy is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation … but it’s also raising hard questions about workplace protection and what a good job will look like in the future.”

Here is how the last part should read because this is what she actually means. “… don’t you know that it’s also raising hard questions that you poor ignorant workers aren’t capable of answering. Only omnipotent government, led by someone with my superior intelligence, is capable of making these decisions. Government is the only thing that protects you from your bad decision-making, and a good job is what I think it should look like, not what you think it should be”.

“In an age of technological change, we need to provide pathways to get skills and credentials for new occupations and create online platforms to connect workers and jobs. There are exciting efforts underway and I want to support and scale the ones that show results.

I have a question for young people who have grown up using all this new technology. Are you more tech savvy than a sixty seven year old who, because of her status, has been sheltered from technology? Does she have any understanding of how Uber works? She has no idea how someone can make money using Uber, or how a person can make money sharing their house using Airbnb. She is stuck in the old economy of taxi cab medallions, hotel regulations, labor unions, licensing boards and government controls. She said she wants to “create online platforms to connect workers and jobs“. Does she not know that Uber is that platform, or does she just want government to be in control of the platforms? How much smarter are you about what is possible in the new economy, than Mrs. Clinton. She needs to be quite and get out of your way!

Mrs. Clinton’s totalitarian attitude reminds me of a quote by George Gilder: “The Ambitious agent of contemporary liberalism simply ensures that government will do nothing well, except to expand itself as an obstacle of growth and innovation. Government best supports the future by refraining as much as possible from trying unduly to shape it”.

We can’t let credentialed ignorance prevail, or as Thomas Sowell has so eloquently stated: “People who are very aware that they have more knowledge then the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one tenth of the knowledge of all of the average persons put together. In this situation, for the intellegentsia to impose their notions on ordinary people is essentially to impose ignorance on knowledge“.

Related ArticleThe New, Old, Buzz Words, Income Inequality, at

Related ArticleIncome Inequality Part II: Increase The Minimum Wage, at

Related ArticleThe “Equal Pay Day” Canard, at