Storms Create Jobs (And Stupidity Springs Eternal)

Debt, Government, Inflation, Labor, Political Economy

You won’t hear Shepard Smith of Fox News suggest that, in order to create jobs in their own communities, people should set fire to their homes, and so help spur economic activity among local builders, landscapers, plumbers, and electricians.

But there the anchor was today, in Studio B, touting the economic benefits that would accrue from natural destruction.

The scale of Sandy the Storm guaranteed that it was a matter of time before John Maynard Keynes’ central stupidity would surface in the media. The stupidity Mr. Smith was giving voice to today is that out of Hurricane Sandy’s destruction will come jobs to revive the stricken region.

Residence along the battered eastern seaboard should hang tough, said Shep. Federal aid was on the way. Think about all the jobs that will be created in rebuilding after Hurricane Sandy.

As this thinking goes, war too is good for the economy, even though war always destroys individually owned real assets and capital.

The same goes for a storm such as Sandy.

For every dollar the government will spend, a dollar will be siphoned from you and me.

Like any committed statist, Shep sees big government—huge public works—and big deficits (especially during depressions), not as a bane but as a blessing, to be embraced as the key to economic boom.

In the short term, destruction will benefit some at the expense of others. The government will confiscate private property in the form of taxes (or steal wealth by stealth through its inflationary monetary policy) so as to create Shep’s imagined industries. These jobs will by short lived and unsustainable. For every government job generated, a real job will be lost in the private economy.

UPDATE II: Publishing Books In The Age Of The Internet, Pathological PC and Unprecedented laziness (Hire Your Own PR)

Education, English, General, Ilana Mercer, Internet, Journalism, Literature, Political Economy

The welcome news comes that Karen De Coster is publishing a book.

A mutual friend, author Rob Stove, has offered Karen some advice and posted it on her heavily trafficked Facebook Wall.

I counseled differently:

“As someone who has done every bit of heavy lifting for my last book—quite successfully, I might add—I have to disagree somewhat with Rob (who advises writing for prestigious publications on the topic, first).

The traditional, stuffy, staid publishing world is dying (yippee). I read the once-brave TLS. All new writers have to be (it would appear) people of color and/or those with no Y chromosome. The only writing worth reading vis-a-vis these new writers is the superb writing by the TLS’s increasingly PC reviewers (who try to be kind to the pig-ignorant, boring, PC writers they have to review).

In any case, you sell books from a platform. Mine was developed over almost 15 years as a weekly columnist.

Karen De Coster writes for a very large site, LRC, with a dedicated, niche readership. She manages social media with skill and has thousands of FB friends (whom she will have to instruct to “Like” her book and display it on their FB pages, if they want to keep her FB company. Here is my Facebook Friendship Policy).

That’s the future of publishing. Who cares if some pompous scribe in a dying publication (check its Alexa rank for stage of rigor) gives one a good review? Rob Stove—he edited The Cannibal; hire a good editor. We all need one—was mentioned by the New Yorker, and other prestigious publications. To this not all of us can aspire. However, were Rob to write a book about politics or culture, he would have to forget about future mention.

Back to my point: Karen can sell lots of books if she publishes the book herself (How much would you rather earn? 17%-50% royalties or 100%, all the more so when you, the writer, do all the work). She can go the CreateSpace route or with her own label. She then uses her platform on LRC to sell to an already interested audience. She also promotes her book on Facebook, via ads and by requiring all friends to “Like” and display book on their Fav. page. Even big names are publishing their own books (see David Frum’s new book. I followed it from CNN).

A small publisher does nothing for a writer except deplete him/her. There are a handful of large publishers worth considering for the TV PR they can generate. This writer (me) manages every aspect of the project—social media, fan page and website designs (I pay the attendant bills too, so…), Amazon page management, all writing, limited PR, etc. That’s the route to getting books read by the public in the age of the Internet (without which the true rebels would be destined for obscurity). Books published by smaller, if respectable, publishers are like the proverbial tree felled in a faraway wood. Almost no one reads them. (Check their profile on Amazon. You’ll see.)

For example, “The Arab Spring: The End of Postcolonialism” is written by a man with the “right” kind of name (non-English/non-Western): Hamid Dabashi. It was published on June 5, 2012 by Zed Books, a print that met the Times Literary Review’s standards.

It’s Amazon rank: #1,614,336 in Books. If you are new to book marketing, that’s abysmal.

(Btw, if you don’t market on Amazon, you’re retarded.)

On the bright side, by the number of reviews “The Arab Spring” got, we can tell that at least one person has read what Dabashi has to say. Conversely, and pessimistically, “0 of 1 people found the following review helpful.” In other words, so far, nobody gives a tinker’s toss what Dabashi’s single reviewer had to say about Dabashi’s latest work.

UPDATE I (10/30): Here’s another TLS “winner,” published (November 1, 2011) by Encounter (who refused the well-motivated proposal that became The Cannibal).

In Money In A Free Society, Tom Congdon touts every form of macroeconomic statism. His approving TLS reviewer mentions the “Austerians” (very bad) but says nothing about the Austrians.

Amazon ranks Money In A Free Society at #560,109 in Books. Zero reviews. Who pays these people?

UPDATE II (Nov. 3): HIRE YOUR OWN PR.

Unless you can get a book deal with one of the major big publishers (try), publish yourself. You’ll be smacking yourself if you don’t. To repeat: 15% royalties (standard industry fare) vs. 100%? Case closed. All the more so since small publishers do nothing for you. Unless your publisher is prepared to invest a few thousand for a few weeks of TV and media blitz. However, you could buy such PR yourself privately. Why hand over your money to a 2nd party to hire a 3rd? If you control the purse strings (as disposable income dictates), hire PR directly, to get on the main shows.

Want to have a frothy a day? Go with a small publisher. They suck. These are dominated by errant youth (or hippie elders who defer to such youth), who don’t have a work ethic or a brain cell to rub between them. No one has taught America’s young how to work professionally; how to conduct themselves with respect to author and contract and execute duties properly: If you want them done to standards, you’ll be inputting info and updating your Amazon page and other Internet displays of your product.

Individuals such as Karen are coming from an accounting career. They work alongside people who have serious degrees. The writing profession, on the other hand, is dominated by individuals who are repositories for postmodern education and values (even when they are libertarian). Don’t go there, unless it’s with a powerful, large publisher.

CNN Halloween Ghoul Gloria Borger: Can She Be Humanized?!

Ethics, Gender, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Objectivism, Propaganda, Reason

In anticipation of Mitt Romney’s last major speech delivered on Friday, in Iowa, the voter was expected to endure the analysis of one of the most banal brains on TV (and that takes an effort, given the competition):

Gloria Borger.

This bitch (and yes, I’ve not been mincing words lately) has not stopped maligning Romney’s character. As I’ve said repeatedly, Romney’s political philosophy is situated on a continuum of statism, and, as such, is of a piece with Obama’s.

But in his personal life, Mitt’s a lovely man. That is unless the stupid hos who monopolize discourse in the USA no loner like the silent, tall, capable, hard-working, over-achiever.

Romney’s funny too.

Yet Borger, a member of the Bitches for Obama Brigade at CNN, has not shut up about the need to “humanize” Mr. Romney, the premise of which it that the man is inhuman.

Romney’s public persona is a fictitious construct invented by the characters on the liberal cable news stations, with some acquiescence from Republican women. All agree about his stiffness.

Stiff? Sure, Romney is as rigid as the “Mad Man” Don Draper of the eponymous HBO period drama. The good type of rigid.

So here’s what Borger disgorged about the role, in particular, of Ann Romney in rehabilitating her rogue husband:

BALDWIN: “I want to bring back Gloria Borger, because here we are, strategy wise, 11 days left. We’re counting every day. The Romney camp, you know, seems to be featuring more of Mitt Romney, you know, Mitt Romney the man. And you’ve spent quite a bit of time with the woman who’s been instrumental in that, Ann Romney.”

BORGER: “Right.”

BALDWIN: “Tell me more about that.”

BORGER: “Well, Ann Romney has kind of become their secret weapon here. You know that Mitt Romney has a large problem with women voters. Ann Romney is out there now trying to appeal to women.
She’s also sort of been Mitt Romney’s character witness. Because his big problem has been that average voters say he doesn’t care about my problems. He doesn’t understand my problems. He’s too rich. He’s too out of touch. He doesn’t get it.
So Ann Romney’s job, and she’s been pushing for this in the campaign, is to kind of humanize him, open Mitt Romney up and kind of say to people, you know, actually he does care about you. She pushed for more of that. You heard a little bit more of that at the convention. You heard some of that in the debates.
So now his message is two-pronged. Yes, I can talk about the economy, but, yes, I also understand your problems. And we’ll see if more and more people believe that he does, because he runs substantially behind the president when it comes to economic empathy, if you will. And she’s part of that plan to get people to think that he does get it.”

UPDATED: Orgasmic And Idiotic For Obama (Brave Boeremeisies)

Africa, Ann Coulter, Constitution, Democracy, Elections, Feminism, Gender, Intelligence, Private Property, South-Africa

Way back (in 02.13.08), I mentioned a very old suggestion I had made on a discussion list of unconventional individualists. It was this: “I’d give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.” (Also here, under “Feminism & Feminization.”)

Now, don’t get confused. From the fact that one acknowledges that most women should not have the vote—it doesn’t follow that certain individual ladies are not blessed with great intelligence and should be respected for it. (This is the error of some ultra-conservatives in conceptualizing about certain women.)

On the topic of vaginas voting, the highly intelligent Ann Coulter counseled the same, during a riveting TV segment with the “retarded” and insufferably pompous Piers Morgan. (At one point, Ms. Coulter just glared at this idiot, who refused to talk about anything other than one of her tweets, and who, whenever she spoke, stopped the conversation to demand why she could not be as reasonable all the time, as if cerebrally compromised liberals like himself could detect reason.)

What prompted Ms. coulter’s comment on female suffrage (how we suffer for it) was the Hos for O commercial, in which a representative of the pox of a cohort known as young women (Lena Dunham) likened voting for Obama to her first sexual experience. (Do you allow your daughters to carry on like this?)

The whole thing is repulsive down to the exaggerated, affectatious hand movements (what’s with that bit of bad breeding?).

Watch:

To the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the vote, add the 26th Amendment. It was smuggled into the Constitution by statute, and it artificially swelled the ranks of Democratic voters by millions of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds. While they don’t work for a living, youngsters get to vote for dibs on the livelihood of those who do.

Naturally, CNN, which employes an army of “Harpies Hot For Big Daddy O,” went and axed a segment that offered up evidence that hormones sway female voting patterns. Hormones and a propensity for sentimentality sway most decisions women make. And this proclivity is encouraged in a culture that equates whimsy, capriciousness and silliness with creativity and individualism.

UPDATE (Oct. 28): In response to a fascinating thread on Facebook (stimulated by Brian James Smith’s comments).

BJS: Sigh.. big sigh…. I’m glad I don’t live there anymore. Rather the uncertainty of Africa then the completely plasticized construct of american political/social thought and action. We have no leadership and a pate’ -brained populace, so it seems.
IM: BJS: Perceptive points you make. Thanks. I must say that I understand what you say when I listen to your average SA little (black) girl speak about her future, usually in good English and with the sweet innocence our kids have lost (thanks to their parents and pedagogues).

AND, checkout the brave Boeremeisie (Afrikaner lass).