Category Archives: Private Property

Conservatives Adopting Lefty Language About ‘Income Inequality’

Business, Capitalism, Conservatism, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Private Property, The State

A more meaningful index than “income inequality”—it implies that income equality is the thing to strive for, heaven help us!—would be the correlation between the increasing balance sheets of the central banks of the world and so-called increasing wealth discrepancies.

Conservatives rarely argue the morality of capitalism and individual liberty. If they do debate, it is about the utility of freedom to the common good. The entire impetus of Republican-Party operatives is to keep up with the issues the Democrats introduce to distract from the destructive effects of galloping statism. So if the latter decry “income inequality,” the former affirm that they too worry themselves sick over whatever it is the Democrats are droning on about.

Today, Fox News reported gravely that the “World’s richest 85 people have as much as bottom half the population.” Similarly, this Townhall.com writer assures his readers that “Inequality is a Conservative Issue.”

“The Capitalist Professor” George Reisman is having none of it. He writes “In Defense of Business Fortunes and the Destructive Effects of Imposing Economic Equality,” at www.twitter.com, @GGReisman:

1. A fortune is accumulated by means of earning a high rate of profit on capital and heavily saving and reinvesting it year after year.

2. The high rate of profit is achieved by introducing newer, better products or producing existing products at a lower cost.

3. Sooner or later, competition brings down a high rate of profit to the general level. To go on earning it, further innovation is necessary.

4. For example, to maintain its high rate of profit, Apple has had to repeatedly improve its products and introduce several major new ones.

5. Had Apple stood still, its initially very profitable products, made obsolete by competition, would now be selling at huge losses.

6. The high profits are generally invested in the means of producing the very kind of products in which the innovations take place.

7. For example, Apple’s profits are invested in the expanded and improved production of Apple’s products.

8. Thus, business fortunes under capitalism represent ever better, less expensive products produced with capital constituted by those fortunes.

9. The fortunes originate in profits and are used as capital. Both ways they serve the general buying public. They also pay wages and salaries.

10. The existence of fortunes under capitalism benefits everyone in his capacity both as a buyer of products and seller of labor.

11. Imposing economic equality requires the confiscation of high profits. It would abort the earning of fortunes and stifle economic progress.

12. Advocates of economic equality know nothing about profits, innovation, or capital. They believe that wealth is a pile of consumers’ goods.

13. The capitalists, whom they depict as fat men, allegedly have too much of this pile. Some of it must be given to the starving masses.

14. Thus, imposing economic equality is also a policy of seizing capital in order to consume it—eating the seed corn and being impoverished.

15. Advocates of economic equality are wilfully ignorant of economics. They are fueled by envy and resentment, biting the hands that feed them.

16. Socialism/Communism is their philosophy. Stalin and Mao are their heroes. Famine, slave labor camps, and mass death are their legacy.

Can Freedom Lovers Chill In Chile?

America, Britain, Free Markets, GUNS, Private Property, Regulation, Taxation

After watching a property search on House Hunters International, I fell in love with Chile.

Life in certain parts of the country offers quite a few of the prerequisites on my list:

* A cold climate: I detest the heat; the brain functions optimally at 65 degrees.
* Beautiful landscapes.
* Very little crime (because of the country’s demographic make-up).
* Wonderful value (in this episode, home hunter “Michelle” purchased upwards of 20 acres of lake view in Panguipulli, for under US $200,000).
* Gun ownership. While it is not “a constitutional right, personal firearm ownership is permitted in Chile.”

Can Chilean property taxes be higher than in the Evergreen State, where, in order to keep up with the price of the miseducation of the effing kids by their unionized educrats, rates increase irrespective of property value? I doubt it. Considering how cheap property is in Chile, taxes on it are likely lower.

I have twice written positively about Chile: “A Vote For Chile’s President” (a column) and “Chile Is No Haiti” (a blog post).

As if to confirm my positive impression of the country, released today by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal is “the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom.” Chile is said to “excel in Latin America.”

Overall, the country ranks number 7 with the US falling behind to number 12.

… The U.S. and the U.K, historically champions of free enterprise, have suffered the most pronounced declines. Both countries now fall in the “mostly free” category. … But as the U.S. economy languishes, many countries are leaping ahead, thanks to policies that enhance economic freedom—the same ones that made the U.S. economy the most powerful in the world. …
… Hong Kong continues to dominate the list, followed by Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand and Canada. These are the only countries to earn the index’s “economically free” designation. Mauritius earned top honors among African countries and Chile excelled in Latin America. Despite the turmoil in the Middle East, several Gulf states, led by Bahrain, earned designation as “mostly free.”
… A realignment is under way in Europe, according to the index’s findings. Eighteen European nations, including Germany, Sweden, Georgia and Poland, have reached new highs in economic freedom. …

MORE.

MMA Hero Vs. CNN Cowards

GUNS, Media, Private Property, Propaganda

Mixed martial arts fighter (MMA) Joe Torrez is the hero in this story, the men who invaded his home and attacked him deserved death all, their sympathizers at CNN are worthy of ignominy.

The broadcasters that have extended their mandate to annually anointing the nation’s politically acceptable heroes know just how to shape debate. A Latino “reporter” oozed his sympathies to bimbo anchor Brook Baldwin—sympathies to the “victims” of a homeowner who defended home and hearth with all the MMA might he could muster.

Torrez refused to curl up in the fetal position upon being savagely attacked in his inner sanctum. Most importantly, the MMA lightweight did not risk sure death, which would have been his lot had he extended an invitation to the local Polizei to break down his door and “help” him. (Or shoot him, or his kid, or his lady friend, or his best friend The Dog.)

Joseph Torrez, 27, repelled a home invasion, killing one man, injuring another so badly he left in an ambulance and persuading two others to run in fear, authorities said.
Torrez and the men clashed on New Year’s Day at his home outside of Las Cruces, reportedly part of an ongoing feud. One of the attackers, 22-year-old Leonard Calvillo, called ahead to threaten Torrez, the Las Cruces Sun-News reported, citing court documents.
Mixed Martial Arts fighter Joseph Torrez fought off four men who broke into his house, killing one and putting one in the hospital, authorities say.
“I’ll kill you and your family … I’ll go to your house,” Calvillo reportedly said.
Calvillo arrived shortly after with 20-year-old Nathan Avalos and brothers Sal and Raymond Garces and pounded on Torrez’s door, authorities said.
Torrez’s fiancee, son and the fiancee’s sister were all home at the time, authorities said.
The fiancee leaned against the door of the mobile home, trying to keep them out, but they busted through, authorities said.
There they met Torrez, a 155-pound lightweight with a record of one win and five losses, according to the fight website SherDog.com.
The four men are all gang members, a Dona Ana County Sheriff’s spokeswoman said.
C.J. McElhinney, an attorney for Torrez, told the Sun-News witness said the attackers brought a crude shank and one picked up a knife once they forced their way inside.
Sal Garces, 25, was stabbed to death during the fight. Avalos suffered “severe” facial injuries and was taken to a New Mexico hospital, authorities said.
Torrez endured [the NYD writer meant to say “sustained,” surely] only minor injuries, his lawyer said.
Calvillo and Raymond Garces were both arrested on charges of conspiracy and property damage after they ran from the house.

MORE @ The New York Daily News.

Giving (Bill) Gates The Icy Tongue-Lashing He Deserves

Business, Christianity, Gender, Judaism & Jews, Morality, Objectivism, Private Property, Welfare

The late Steve Jobs was not the only man who had no time for that excuse of a man, Bill Gates.

“[H]edge fund founder Robert W. Wilson, who [sadly] committed suicide over the weekend,” had nothing but contempt for the patronizing Gates (who is also a racist and a statist).

Mr. Wilson, “one of the most active philanthropists in the country”—“over the course of his career he donated an estimated $500 million to various causes”—refused to join what he termed Bill Gates’ “worthless Giving-Pledge” charity—as if Gates’ showy, sanctimonious, very public efforts are the way to give.

Quite the opposite:

The righteous give secretly. The pious give publicly. Accustomed to the hedonism of Hollywood and the exhibitionism of cable news anchors, it may surprise some to learn that the manner in which most Americans give satisfies the exacting standards of righteousness specified by Maimonides. The 12th century Jewish philosopher stipulated that the highest form of charity is practiced when “donor and recipient are unknown to each other.” This is self-explanatory.
Observe how in no time at all, Brangelina, Madonna, Clooney, Lady GaGa …, and Gisele Bundchen advertised the sums they gave. …

(From “Haiti: Trade In Voodoo For Values”)

On BuzzFeed you can puke your way through Bill Gates’ paternalistic, condescending verbose missives to the late Mr. Wilson. Here I’ve posted only Wilson’s “caustic” replies (courtesy of BuzzFeed):

From: Robert W. Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:16 PM
To: Bill Gates
Subject: Re: Giving Pledge discussion

Mr. Gates, I decided more than ten years ago to try to give away 70% of my net worth and have already given away one-half billion dollars. (I’ve never been a Forbes 400) So I really don’t have to take the pledge.

Your “Giving Pledge” has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that’s it.

I’m going to stay far away from your effort. But thanks for thinking of me. Cordially

When the vapid Gates disgorged more empty words, the admirable Mr. Wilson put an end to the discussion. Decisively:

——- Original Message ——-

From: Robert W. Wilson

To: Bill Gates

Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:15 PM

Subject: Re: Giving Pledge discussion

Mr. Gates, thanks much for your email. But as my previous email indicated, I wouldn’t have much fun or add much value to this group. You, being a liberal, think you can change people more than I think.

But let me make one comment. When I talk to young people who seem destined for great success, I tell them to forget about charities and giving. Concentrate on your family and getting rich—which I found very hard work. I personally and the world at large are very glad you were more interested in computer software than the underprivileged when you were young. And don’t forget that those who don’t make money never become philanthropists.

When rich people reach 50 and are beginning to slow down is the time to begin engaging them in philanthropy.

I’d greatly appreciate just leaving it at that. Cordially

What a shame that steely Randian men such as Robert W. Wilson are a dying breed, and creepy androgyny like Bill Gates are multiplying.