The following was a reader’s comment to my article in American Thinker, “Why Elitists Fail“

Human beings can exist in one of only two modes: by controlling nature, or by controlling those who control nature. Those in the first category survive by acting in accordance with the facts of reality. Those in the second survive by manipulating the perceptions of other men. The method of thinking required for one is the opposite of that required for the other, and cannot coexist in the same man. Those most successful at manipulating the perceptions of other men (the political elite) will always be those least connected to reality.

We are ruled by parasites, who must constantly evade the knowledge of their own dependency, and who have no conception of their hosts’ limits. They will suck us dry, while neither knowing–nor caring if they did know–that their own deaths must necessarily follow.

From “Why Elitists Fail” in American Thinker, January 30, 2010

Even the brightest minds cannot escape emotional impediments to a rational conclusion. Combining such emotional rationalism with a focus on theories detached from the verification of practical experience can be downright dangerous. This is why it concerns so many that Obama’s administration has the lowest number of appointees from the private sector in his cabinet of any president in history.

The average American knows that taking a dollar from one person and giving it to another does not create a stimulus. The average parent knows that protecting one from the consequences of bad decisions does not teach one to make good decisions. The individual citizen knows that the government will not make better health care decisions or better investment decisions because they will never know as much as all the citizens. The voter who knows the consequences of too much debt on his household does not find it more acceptable when a lot of zeros are added to the balance and the loan account is moved to Washington, D.C.

Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post “From John Edwards, lessons on celebrity and politics”

“- the lesson to be learned from the John Edwards affair. “We have substituted the camera — fame, celebrity — for both achievement and the studied judgment of colleagues.”

David Brooks warns of the “The Populist Addiction” in The New York Times.  ”

“voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.”

The Supreme Court decision reversing McCain Feingold leaves a lot to consider. Many on the left are as outraged as the right was on Roe vs Wade. Jeff Jacoby tries to calm the storm in “Candidates, campaigns, and New Coke“ in The Boston Globe.

“But even those that do choose to advertise during an election cycle will not make the mistake so many of the court’s detractors are making. They know that Americans are not sheep, easily herded by means of clever commercials. If corporate advertising was irresistible, after all, we’d all be drinking New Coke.”

Finally I have an article at American Thinker:  “Why Elitists Fail.”

“Even the brightest minds cannot escape emotional impediments to a rational conclusion. Combining such emotional rationalism with a focus on theories detached from the verification of practical experience can be downright dangerous. This is why it concerns so many that Obama’s administration has the lowest number of appointees from the private sector in his cabinet of any president in history.”

And yesterday also at American Thinker : “Why Obama’s tax incentives for small business will backfire“

“Such micromanagement of the economy is not surprising from the moral supremacists who are more interested in  imposing their view of social justice than truly enabling the economy to allocate capital and create jobs.”

I greatly appreciate the numerous comments at American Thinker. They are thoughtful and worthy of your reading.

Thanks to all the visitors at Rebelyid.

My second article in American Thinker

A Political Recession

Excerpts:

Growth is being restricted by political uncertainty more than economic policy.

More business people who are either able or nearing retirement are “going Galt”, downsizing or reducing their income and expenses, refusing to spend their labor to support a government antagonistic to their efforts.

While the government is trying every economic stimulus in the play book, they are counteracting it with political initiatives that effectively destimulate economic and job growth with confiscation and uncertainty.

This has become one of my favorite features on one of my favorite sites.

Randall Hoven’s Graph of the Day at American Thinker

Hoven notes: In ther last decade we have LOST 1,489,000 jobs in the private sector (non farm) and GAINED 1,697,000 in the government sector.

In he last year we have LOST 3,337,000 jobs in the private sector (non Farm) and LOST 39,000 in the Government sector.

Beverly Gunn writes writes in American Thinker “Fighting the Beltway Mentality.”

Excerpt:

“This was demonstrated as each person we met immediately gave us their job title, followed by the title of whatever their (significant other) did for a living. It was clear this was done to highlight personal importance.  In part this amused me, but I soon came to understand this was only the beginning of what we learned was called Beltway Mentality.  We discovered that this was an area where each person we met was competing to out-do everyone else, while also cultivating self-importance.”

“It was a singularly insular place where a certain framework of assumption included the concept that ideas formed here should be the gold standard for the nation and the rest of the world.  Or worse, the assumption’s further corollary was that if others did not think your way, then they must have a significant defect!”

a comment on my article at American Thinker :

Then there is the “expert” assumption of academic economists who are fond of saying things like “assume a perfect economy.” A joke written in reply to this conceited habit a tale of three men washed onto a dessert isle with 3 cases of canned food. The three are a chemist, an engineer and an economist.

The chemist takes some plants, boils them to create an acid which he then uses to eat through the cans’ metal top and acquire food.

The engineer makes a fulcrum from some wooden sticks and a rock, creating a device that smashes the can open from the side.

The economist sits there and says, “Assume a can opener” - and proceeds to starve.

My first article published at American Thinker-

The iron law of bubbles

excerpts:

But this same infatuation with talent can be attached to more than money; it can be attached to power.  With capitalism struggling to recover from yet another smackdown bubble we seem inclined to somehow believe that academics in political power will yield better results.  The same uncertainty that plagues the financial markets also plagues the political environment. The biggest difference is that a financial bubble will be brought down much more quickly. Bad political solutions become institutionalized and linger for decades. In many ways the current financial mess was born from political solutions imposed in response to our previous bubbles.

Our political discourse is largely about the balance between the need to smartly regulate a very efficient but imperfect market, and the desire to merely replace financial power with political power. It often means the balance between individual rights and the interests of the collective. While the economic self-interest of capitalism is suspect after the bubble is burst, we often suffer more from the political self-interest that seeks to correct it.  Our most oppressive laws are often the ones designed to protect us from our own stupidity.

From Randall Hoven at American Thinker

Graph of the Day December 24,2009

At American Thinker Jeffrey Folks writes ” The Obama Energy Fiasco.”

While America is restricting energy production through legislative penalties the rest of the world is seeking new energy sources, drilling new well (including 90 miles off our shores), to prepare for growth. Many American producers are relocating overseas.  The result is that we will become even more dependent on foreign energy than ever.

Excerpts:

The world’s great energy companies, known as the “super majors,” were once largely headquartered in the United States, but now they are being challenged, and soon, if our government’s policies fail to be corrected, will be supplanted by foreign suppliers like Petrobras and Sinopec. Already, several important oil exploration and drilling companies have announced plans to leave the United States. Halliburton, the nation’s largest driller, has set up dual headquarters in Dubai, while smaller companies have relocated entirely to Switzerland and other low-tax nations. As the burden of taxation and regulation becomes even more onerous, especially with the threat of a punishing cap and trade bill,

The fact is that Obama’s energy policies are making us look like the world’s suckers, and for good reason. The rest of the world talks of climate change legislation while, quite sensibly, it goes about its business buying up all of the oil and gas leases it can find. Only in this country, and with this administration, does the obtuse idea prevail that one nation should proceed with unilateral carbon reduction.

The academic smucks, including one Nobel prize winner (other than the president) who directs our energy policy, think that we can impede our oil and gas businesses, lay ruin to our coal industry, block the building of new dams and nuclear plants, and still compete with countries like China and India. These countries are making prudent provision for their future energy needs by buying up vast tracts of resources that the Obama administration has, in effect, placed off-limits for domestic oil companies.