Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 1,900 times in 2011. If it were a cable car, it would take about 32 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

The OWS crowd would have you believe that the big money makers have, by themselves, put us in the finanical situation this country is in yet they are more than willing to take advantage of what market capitalism and the big money makers have created for them.  Gary Wolfram brings this out.  The original post can be seen at this link: http://givemeliberty.org/forums/index.php?/topic/821-hillsdale-college-in-the-news/.

I hope this makes you think about market capitalism in a different light.  

“Occupy Wall Street Crowd Blind to Benefits of Capitalism”

By Gary Wolfram
William Simon Professor of Economics and Public Policy
Hillsdale College

Whenever I watch media coverage of another Occupy Wall Street event I am reminded of an exchange between Jewish protesters in the 1979 Monte Python movie Life of Brian. One of the protesters asks another what the Romans have brought to the area and the conversation goes like this:

Question: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Answer: Brought peace?
Response: Oh, peace – shut up!

The point is that the Roman institutions brought a good deal to the area that was being overlooked by the protesters. The Wall Street protesters, in their hatred of capitalism, overlook things including the fact that over the last 100 years capitalism has reduced poverty more and increased life expectancy more than in the 100,000 years prior.

Every semester I ask my students: “What would you rather be? King of England in 1263 or you?” Turns out, students would rather be themselves. They enjoy using their iPhone, indoor plumbing, central heating, refrigerators and electric lighting. All of these things are available to the average person in America today and none of them were available to the aristocracy when the West operated under the feudal system.
 
How is it that for thousands of years mankind made very little progress in increasing the standard of living and yet today half of the goods and services you use in the next week did not exist when I was born? It wasn’t that there was some change in the DNA such that we got smarter. The Greeks knew how to make a steam engine 3,000 years ago and never made one. The difference is in how we organize our economic system. The advent of market capitalism in the mid 18th century made all of the difference.

We need not just rely on historical data. Look at cross-section evidence. I try another experiment with my students. I tell them they are about to be born and they can choose whatever country in the world they would like to be born in. The only caveat is they will be the poorest person in that country. Every student picks a country that is primarily organized in a market capitalist system. No one picks a centrally planned state. No one says, “I want to be the poorest person in North Korea, Cuba, or Zimbabwe,” countries which are at the bottom of the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.
 
What does it mean to be poor in our capitalist society that the Occupy Wall Street crowd so hates? Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has several studies of those classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau. He found that 80 percent of poor persons in the United States in 2010 had air conditioning, nearly three quarters of them had a car or truck, nearly two-thirds had satellite or cable television, half had a personal computer and more than two-thirds had at least two rooms per person.
 
Contrast this with what it means to be poor in Mumbai, India, a country that is moving rapidly towards market capitalism but was burdened for decades with a socialist system. A recent story in The Economist described Dharavi, a slum in Mumbai, where for many families half of the family members must sleep on their sides in order for the entire family to squeeze into its living space.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has shown a lack of understanding of how the market capitalist system works. They appear to think that the cell phones they use, food they eat, hotels they stay in, cars they drive, gasoline that powers the cars they drive and all the myriad goods and services they consume every day would be there under a different system, perhaps in more abundance.

But there is no evidence this could be or ever has been the case. The reason is that only market capitalism solves the two major problems that face any economy-how to provide an incentive to innovate and how to solve the problem of decentralized information. The reason there is so much innovation in a market system compared to socialism or other forms of central planning is that profit provides the incentive for innovators to take the risk needed to come up with new products.
 
My mother never once complained that we did not have access to the latest Soviet washing machine. We never desired a new Soviet car. The socialist system relies on what Adam Smith referred to as the benevolent butcher and while there will undoubtedly be benevolent butchers out there, clearly a system that provides monetary rewards for innovators is much more dynamic and successful. The profit that the Occupy Wall Street protesters decry is the reason the world has access to clean water and anti-viral drugs.

The other major problem that must be solved by any economic system is how to deal with the fact that information is so decentralized. There is no way for a central planner to know how many hot dogs 300 million Americans are going to want at every moment in time. A central planner cannot know the relative value of resources in the production of various goods and services. Market capitalism solves that problem through the price system. If there are too few hot dogs, the price of hot dogs will rise and more hot dogs will be produced. If too many hot dogs are produced, the price of hot dogs will fall and fewer will be produced.
 
Market capitalism is the key to the wealth of the masses. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in his 1920 book, Socialism, only market capitalism can make the poor wealthy. Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek in his famous 1945 paper, The Use of Knowledge in Society, showed that only the price system in capitalism can create the spontaneous order that ensures that goods will be allocated in a way that ensures consumers determine the use of resources. The Occupy Wall Street movement would make best use of its time and energy in protesting the encroachment of the centrally planned state that led to the disaster of the Soviet Union, fascist Germany, and dictatorial North Korea.

This article was originally posted at the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute blog.

“There are three ways to balance a budget:

 1. Spend less + tax less

2. Tax more – spend more

3. Grow the economy.

#1:  Leaves the money in the economy and leaves it up to businesses and consumers.

#2:  Takes money out of the economy and puts it back in targeted projects.

#3:  Results from one of the above.

I’m pretty sure you would choose #2 (a perfectly good choice for an espoused liberal). I don’t believe that works very well (if at all) because it’s like giving a man a fish – tomorrow he’ll be hungry. You have to keep pumping the money into projects year after year AND the party in power uses money collected from EVERYBODY to pursue their own pet projects (the Dems funnel money to the unions and social programs – the Republicans funnel money to the military)

I believe leaving the money in the economy is the best route, #1 – let the greedy people make more  millions by hiring as many workers as they need (rich people didn’t get rich on their own – one person doesn’t often make  millions w/o minions). When the economy picks up, worker bees will have more choices and will be able to change jobs if they don’t like the job they have or aren’t getting paid enough.

Rich people buy things like boats, houses, football teams, $10,000 shower curtains, etc. all of that creates jobs.

Rich people put money in banks – banks loan money (if the economy doesn’t suck) to poorer people to buy homes, buy cars, start businesses (so that they, with luck and/or skill, can become rich people).

Rich people invest in stock in existing and startup companies that employ people.

Rich people donate huge amounts of money to their pet causes (colleges, hospitals, etc.)

Teach a man how to be a rich person and he’ll eat well for the rest of his life!

I, personally, hope, one day to be a rich person, with thousands of employees that buy houses, cars, boats, burgers, etc.  Employees that save their money for college for their kids and to start their own businesses, quit the jobs I gave them, and go on to be rich people in their own rights.

Just sayin’

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!  It’s either socialism or capitalism!  Which do you want?

Justice Breyer states that Justices are junior varsity politicians and as such, are terrible politicians. That is a refreshing line of thinking coming from a sitting supreme court judge. He also talks about ‘originalism’; the view some have taken regarding what the original writers of the constitution meant. One thing that Justice Breyer speaks about is how we take values, that are permanent, and in the constitution, and try to apply them to circumstances that do.

I think that regardless of your political leanings, this discussion sheds some light on how the Supreme Court works and why. You might not agree with everything he says, but Justice Breyer is very candid about the court, about the constitution and what it was meant to be and how it is to be used, and just the general workings of the democratic process.

The link below will take you to the video. Listen with an open mind then make your own decision. I look forward to any comments.

http://forum-network.org/lecture/justice-stephen-breyer-making-our-democracy-work

The question itself is good in that it should make us all stop and think about our actions regarding any one person or persons speaking. The rest of the opening statement though bothers me because it immediately makes a subtle assumption that it is becoming the norm for violence to follow political speech, and due to that assumption, we need to speak with care. If not read carefully, a person could come away with a feeling of alarm, of needing to watch their every word. This is not necessarily what Thomas Jefferson would want.

It is subtle innuendos, in comments such as this, that seem to be picked up by either the media or public figures and used as a tool to further one agenda or another. As the citizenry becomes more informed, we all have to be careful of our speech, to ensure as much as possible, that we do not speak with innuendos. I realize that innuendos are going to happen simply because we are human but as we speak and write more, let’s learn to be more attentive to not only what we say and how we say it, but what we don’t say.

Jill asks the question that “…should not our leaders political speech elevate instead of being incendiary?” That would be nice but our leaders have used incendiary speech since this country was founded. Expecting any type of change would be simplistic at best, ridiculous at worst. As far as our leaders speech elevating, I don’t want that kind of speech. What I do want, from our leaders, is truth in their speech to me. That is simplistic also, but that would mean more to me than patronizing, elevating speech.

What happened in Tucson did not happen because of incendiary political speech. It happened because one person, with a history of mental problems, went off the deep end. The minute we start blaming others speech on actions such as this, we begin the decent down that slippery slope of censorship. Do not be so quick to blame others for one persons action.

I believe that most people would take the essay statement’s base premise that being informed is the best way to approach, and possibly produce, a solution to the challenges of our society as a true statement. The operative words ‘creative thinking’ and ‘critical thinking’ are what put action into the statement and are the key to any benefits that might be observed from the action. Before any discussion can be made concerning the benefits received by an informed citizenry, I think it would be prudent to define the terms state above. Without definitions as a background, we may take off on tangents that get away from the core statement.

Let’s look at the beginning of the statement; “An informed citizenry…” What does it mean to be informed? One definition of informed is having sufficient and sufficiently reliable information or knowledge to be able to understand a subject or situation and make appropriate judgments or decisions regarding it. It would then follow that an informed citizenry would be those that search for information, digest it, and actively participate in society putting their knowledge to a good collective use.

This citizenry now puts their knowledge to good collective use by creative and critical thinking. Dr. Edward de Bono states that creative thinking is, “looking at problems or situations from a fresh perspective that suggests unorthodox solutions (though these solutions may be unsettling at first)”. The definition for critical thinking could be stated as disciplined intellectual criticism that combines research, knowledge of historical context, and balanced judgment.

As individuals, and as a group, we have challenges daily. Individually, we look at the challenge, determine its cause (informed) and develop a means to solve it (creative and/or critical thinking). In a group situation, we approach the challenge in the same manner, but now we take input from the group, choose the best ideas, and apply them. In both circumstances, new ideas may have been voiced and possibly used, the challenge is solved and both the individual and the group have gained some kind of benefit.

As an informed citizenry, we need to take the same approach with the challenges we face as a society, largely now couched in the political arena. The challenge here is to overcome the bitter bi-partisan government-knows-best attitudes of our elected officials and attempt to put at least a modicum of civility and intelligence back into all political discussions. In so doing, we may plant the seed for more cordial and beneficial activity.

This doesn’t mean that bi-partisanship will disappear, but at least discussions would hopefully revolve around the matter at hand and not solely on ideals. It wasn’t until this last election that a small group of citizens finally began to notice how the government spent our money. Through some research as well as some critical and creative thinking, this citizenry developed a loosely knit organization (Tea Party) that, as they coalesced, forced a big change in make-up of congress as well as the thinking of our leaders. It was time to remind our leaders that we are a democratic republic and that they work for us, not us for them.

This was an example of an informed citizenry applying critical and creative thinking to determine how to address the challenge of a bigger and more costly government. I would hesitate to say that there were not plenty of new ideas presented and that even if they weren’t accepted at the time, the grain of a thought was planted. Were there benefits to the citizenry from this group addressing the challenge from an informed position? I would say yes, that the immediate, though maybe not recognized benefit, is the citizens of the country seeing that we, the people, do have the power to alter the direction our leaders are taken.

An indirect benefit will be, regardless of anyone’s political affiliation, that the citizenry has taken a big step to what can be euphemized as taking back some small amount of control of our government. It may be difficult for some to realize that not all benefits are realized immediately but as we move through the coming elections, we may just see our leaders begin to actually listen to us and sincerely try to meet our needs. Another indirect benefit will be that discussions, though still partisan, will be more likely to involve honest discussion of topics instead of blaming. The challenge will always be there and as long as the citizenry stays informed, by means of the internet, multiple print sources and open discussion, we will benefit.

Having now stated my thoughts on how an informed citizenry can benefit from creative and critical thinking, I will state that it is imperative we as citizens stay informed and do not allow others to think for us. Kennedy Javuru stated succinctly that “A functioning democracy needs an informed citizenry. Providing citizens with adequate information on priorities, programs and activities ensures not only the legitimacy of a government, but also institutes regimes of transparency and accountability.” (Media and Democracy, October 15, 2010). Stay informed and governments will be accountable.

I have been informed that students are plagiarizing this post.  I must state that any writer worth his or her salt will appropriately cite any information taken from this post.  It is incumbent upon the writer to use their own words and where others’ statements are used, appropriately cite those words.  When you plagiarize my post, or the words and thoughts of anyone, you are showing yourself to be part of the ‘norm’ and not capable of either creative or critical thinking.  Regarding the title of my post, should Professors have this title as a research assignment, I would think it is incumbent upon them to instruct their class as to the nature of this post and that any sign of plagiarism would be dealt with appropriately. 

I am in full agreement with Sen. Udall  in this matter.  Though it would be seen as symbolic, I would like to think that doing so would make a few elected officials realize that it’s time to stop the bickering, finger pointing, and blaming of others.  Recognizing the need to stop would possibly bring that small modicum of civility back to polical discussions.

Now, do not think me simplistic for thinking like this because I am not.  But I do believe in the ability of the human nature to change those things that are not good.  That doesn’t mean that I am going to change my political thinking or that I expect others to change.  What I do expect is for our elected officials to remember that, as Leonard Pitts states, they were elected to lead us, not get re-elected. I also expect everyone to remember that discourse does not have to be poisonous to be effective.

It will be interesting to see if even a few Senators and Representatives choose to mix seat, and what the reaction of the press will be. If it does happen, look for the press to make something more out it than what it really is; an attempt to bring civility back to our government.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/12/lets-try-a-better-response

Charles Krauthammer points out some very good circumstances where the left is just as bad with rhetoric, so let’s just stop the finger pointing and realize that sometimes bad things happen because there are bad people amongst us.  Read the article and consider.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html?hpid=opinionsbox1