Welcome to the Trump show!
If you get your happies watching media crybabies wriggle and kick their legs in the air, then grab your corn for popping and relax, Daddy is in town.
Today’s ceremony, however, has a very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have bore the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment.
It belongs to you.
Remember the context: the world watching, the American people watching, all the Washington elites watching, four former presidents watching (and physically present).
He calls the politicians all out and blames them for “American carnage.” Rather than saying what he was supposed to say, he essentially said that all these people, these former presidents, etc, have betrayed the American people.
The most important line of the speech might be: “From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.” This has been the consistency in his seemingly “inconsistent” (to the untrained eye) campaign.
My favorite thing about the Trump show has been watching bad people cringe, especially the jealous snobs of the media. Yes, there are good people cringing, too, but let us take a moment to celebrate the inauguration of a big-mouthed finger-pointing POTUS who sports bloody-lipping the American media. Would Hillary Clinton call out CNN for its sins: “You are fake news.” The entertainment will last a minimum of four years.
You must understand: this goes far deeper than politics (my feelings, I mean). It is cathartic to watch an independent man take it to the crybabies- the immoral brutes drowning in moral outrage, the porn-obsessed millennials “offended” by pussygate.
Trump has already had a wild success that will catapult him into the history books- from zero political experience to President. And to humiliate the media snobs, now that is success.
Does it matter who wins the Presidency, really? The visible arguments of national politics and related elections are not crucial to the actual inner-workings of the deep state; the lobbyists who bought off Hillary Clinton will continue to buy off politicians in the future, just as they have done since before you were born.
So what is the point of national political campaigns and this candidate against that candidate? To make your political opponents flounder and writhe. If this is the metric, Trump has already been wildly successful.
The Trumpalooza has taken over the American people in the build-up to the 2016 Presidential election. It is true, some people have serious concerns about a business-tycoon-turned-reality-tv star running the affairs of the country. They think he’s too brash, too rich, too cartoonish, too bigoted, too… something and everything. But, these dissenters to the brand of Trump are vanishing by the insult.
Trump has appeal, for real. And it is not just media-driven. Yes, he benefits immensely from free media coverage (Rand Paul complained that he, too would be doing quite well had he received a billion in free press). The press finds him irresistible probably for many reasons, but surely one of them is because the American people are enchanted by The Donald.
Just look at the crowds he attracts at a moment’s notice. Trump announced, with 48 hours notice, that he will drop by Mesa, Arizona the day after the December 15 Republican Debate in Las Vegas. 15,000 people showed up. That is some draw. And he grew out of two venues until he was offered an airport hangar to make his speech. This is the norm wherever Trump goes.
25 Reasons Why Americans Find Trump Appealing
1. Independence (Trump is Really Rich): Donald is famously rich; he’s worth $10 billion. This means he can be more independent than other candidates who depend heavily on wealthy donors. Since he refuses outside money, he is not controlled by those who would offer it.
2. New Money Rich: Dan Phillips of The Economic Populist made the point that Donald comes from new money rather than old money. “While Trump didn’t come from a poor family, his family wasn’t that rich, so Trump behaves like new rich – the brashness the ostentatiousness, the conspicuous consumption… I think a lot of Trump’s presentation and appeal is that he is in essence just a guy from Queens who made good for himself, and who may still have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Trump’s Flyover Country supporters see a kindred spirit who happens to be a billionaire, but for those significantly concerned with propriety, they see an intolerably boorish lout.”
3. Political Outsider: Trump has never been a politician before. He talked about running in the late 80s, but never did it. Ben Carson is also a political outsider. At one point in this race, Trump and Carson were leading the polls in Iowa. When has that ever happened before? American voters are apparently not so interested in all the puppets that the Republican Party tramped out in front of the voters. Guys like Kasich and Christie and, my God, how exciting, Jeb Bush!
4. Ridicules the Establishment: The Establishment is supposed to be taken seriously by all of us. The pundits are supposed to be powerful enough to drown out anything they don’t want to discuss. Trump can say anything he wants without fearing the media will change the topic or ignore him. These Establishment people have manufactured so many unnecessary problems for the American people – and he absolutely ridicules them. Isn’t it fun to watch?
5. Presentations/Style: Unlike all of his opponents, Trump is not boring. He has a certain style and turns everything he does into theatre. Media pundits disparage him as an “entertainer” but a lot of people like his style and his ability to entertain.
6. Unfiltered Mouth: Trump speaks his mind. Agree with him, disagree with him. Nobody is telling him to say it. He works off his gut instincts. That is a plus for him because people see him as a successful fellow.
7. Insults Politicians: People don’t mind insults so much if they are directed at a hated class, namely, American politicians. Sure, he’ll hurl an insult at Rosie every now and then, but she’s not so well-liked herself. Mostly, he is referring to politicians when he lobs such names as “fat slob” and “loser.” Nobody is crawling to their defense.
8. His Insults are “True”: Like any good stand-up comic, Trump says things that we are already thinking, even if not consciously. Jeb is low energy, Fiorina does too often have the scowl of an angry ex. The insults are true enough that we laugh… and remember.
9. Impromptu Speeches: People might not view Trump’s hair as authentic, but they view Trump the man as authentic. They listen to him speak and think, “He believes it, he really believes it. And he is pissed off.” Nobody imagines a think tank writing him a gloating speech about how he is kicking everybody’s ass in the polls.
10. Political Correctness: Americans are fed up with the cloying political correctness they encounter at every turn. PC is evident in all public discourse. It assumes the worst intention when another person disagrees with you. Trump won’t put up with it. Americans want to fight back against the ====bullies. When the Black Lives Matter people stole Bernie Sanders’ microphone, Trump poked fun at him. Trump is not afraid of the political bullies in the crowds or in the media.
11. Media-Proof: The media is generally quite effective at marginalizing outsider candidates. But Trump is not exactly an unknown to the American public. People kind of know his background and style, and they kind of like it. Millions of Americans have already seen his decision-making style on their television when they watched The Apprentice.
12. Negotiation Skills: Donald wrote The Art of the Deal, which he says is the second best book in the world (the Bible is better, he says). He is famous for getting what he wants and enjoying his life. Americans sense that the man has clearly won his share of negotiations.
13. Winner: “America doesn’t win anymore.” This is a constant refrain in Donald’s politics. It is true. America has lost a couple of wars, SAT scores were higher before Disco (did Disco make us dumber?), and the economic recovery has been less than inspiring. American does seem to have a “winning” problem these days. Supporters of Trump think putting a winner in office might translate into American becoming a winner again. Hence, the perception of plausibility in Trump’s trite campaign slogan.
14. Screw Decorum: The greatly respected conservative intellectual Charles Murray criticized Trump for his lack of decorum. Murray thinks conservatives should be gentlemen. But many conservative Americans enjoy Trump’s aggression because it shows that at least he is willing to fight against their foes.
15. Populism: Trump positions himself as “the voice of the people”. He answers media questions as if he transmitted the feelings of the American people. He frequently invokes the “silent majority”, adding that it isn’t so silent anymore. His is a populism that appeals to disparate types of Americans: minorities, conservatives, white democrats.
16. No Policy Papers: It is true, Trump does not publish papers with detailed position statements. It seems that Trump prefers to see where his negotiations can take him. Multitudes appreciate the fact that he has no policy papers because that means that he has no comprehensive program to screw the American people. Who, if it is not the American people, are the main targets in political policy papers?
17. Immigration: Trump altered the political debate when he brought up the problem of illegal immigrants doing illegal things. The immigration issue is the Donald’s strongest because he sets himself clearly apart from most other Republican candidates. Incidentally, many Republican voters support Trump’s minority position in the Party. Blacks and (legal) Hispanics support Trump on immigration. Also, people want to see the big, fat, beautiful wall the Donald has fixed in his mind.
18. Always Opposed TPP: Of course, many politicians have come out against the TPP/ObamaTrade, but the only Republican to be against it from the beginning was Donald Trump (the only Democrat was Bernie Sanders). On the issue of free trade, Trump is enthusiastically against it. But there have been little more than yawns from other Republican candidates. This would seem to be an opportunity for Republican candidates to differentiate themselves from Trump, but he is leading the charge and framing this issue, too.
19. Questions American Empire: Trump was an early critic of the Iraq War. Jeb still unquestionably supports his bro’s entry into Iraq, his only criticism of Iraq is that the exit strategy could have been better. Trump is also not obsessed with foreign policy. Highly refreshing for Americans who have grown tired of the bellicosity of Republican politicians.
20. No Worse Than Alternative Candidates: Electing Trump is not “scary” for many Americans. People are just as afraid of Jeb and Hillary ruling over them.
21. Debates with Hillary: What could be more entertaining than Trump calling Hillary Clinton out on her emails? Republican voters remember well Romney and McCain’s feeble sparring matches with President Obama. Would Mrs. Clinton really be afraid of a debate with Marco Rubio and his “working-class credentials?”
22. Jobs: People feel that Trump will protect job losses to other countries, especially Mexico.
23. Etch a Sketch: The Establishment desperately needs some shaking up. $200 trillion in un-funded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid seems to be a problem. The first step is to ridicule the establishment and shake things up a bit. If the establishment doesn’t even take the debt seriously, how can the American voter expect to ever get out from under it?
24. Twitter: The Donald uses Twitter to keep his messages going out to millions of supporters. His insult-laced Tweets are interesting enough that some actually get read. This attention by his followers probably helps him organize supporters very quickly as well.
25. Businessman: Donald Trump has spent his life as a businessman, building golf courses and other stuff people enjoy. Everybody says the Donald is a joy to work for. Americans like business tycoons, they figure these people have at least responded to the wishes of others to earn their fame. It’s true that Trump has used the bankruptcy laws to his advantage, but how many American’s are against that? How many of his peers on the Republican debate stage are against it?
Bonus: “Barack… You’re Fired”: Millions of Americans are waiting to hear it. Imagine Trump’s tweet on election’s eve.
In the Lexicon of Economic Thought, readers can find simple single-page entries on 176 economic or social topics, ranging from bailouts to Sunday shopping laws to academic tenure. Walter Block and Michael Walker give the perspective of a serious economist, not just a political pundit. So, in the case of academic tenure, they go through the arguments for and against tenure, and then look at how a truly free market would operate in the world of higher education. There would be freedom of choice. Students might get vouchers instead of money going directly to universities and then entrepreneurs would put out different types of schools for the students to choose from. All universities would have to be privatized for this to work. Some might have tenure, others might not – who cares? The point is that in a free system universities would be responsible to the end users: students and those who are paying for the students, meaning parents and taxpayers (who would use politics to keep the schools responsible for their particular programs). Block concluded that “only on the basis of the free marketplace” could we find a real answer to the viability of university tenure.
It is really helpful to have a dictionary of economic issues to bring you up to speed on the definition of the issues so you can formulate an informed opinion on the matters and a solid starting point for further study.
Block, Walter and Michael Walker, Lexicon of Economic Thought, The Fraser Institute, 1989
Not everybody is on the brink of an existential crisis, but most people who think deeply about their lives probably are on the brink. I think it’s because these people are not interested in accepting package-deal answers provided by traditional religions, especially those who live in a highly technological society that seems to break new ground every week, changing the ways people live. Religions have provided answers to the fundamental questions for a very long time, and now those options for meaning no longer exist for many people. What are they left with? Not much.
The scientists don’t provide very much meaning for life, it’s not their job anyways, as they say. Scientists and inventors might possibly use their trend-setting work to face their own existential issues (although I doubt this is common), but the most they can offer others is the Gospel of Technology. Technology increases comfort and helps people ask more specific questions, but it does not give answers to the fundamental questions.
Wealth is probably another factor. Wealthier people have more time to wonder about their existence and, yet, they can feel more alienated as their work feels less and less connected to others. Wealthier people get depressed from said alienation. Less wealthy people live shorter lives with less leisure time and, thus, can’t spend endless time contemplating who or what to trust. They have to make their pick and start living. They might be more likely to choose religion or some similar ethical-philosophical package because they have lives to live, Gods to trust, and children to lead.
Post-traditionalist philosophers have been remarkably unhelpful in helping modern people cope with the meaning of their existence. Camus and Sarte couldn’t even find an affirmative reason to live- to forgo suicide and go on with life. Camus said life was absurd and meaningless, and therefore you should embrace it. Sarte wrote “The absurd man will not commit suicide; he wants to live, without relinquishing any of his certainty, without a future, without hope, without illusions … and without resignation either. He stares at death with passionate attention and this fascination liberates him. He experiences the ‘divine irresponsibility’ of the condemned man.”
Glowing reviews of existence these are not.
Here are a few options I can see for finding meaning in modern society (and the reason why each one is less than satisfying):
- Theoretical science (most people aren’t professional scientists and don’t understand their findings well enough to find solace on a Sunday morning- if indeed the scientists find it themselves)
- Obsessing over technology (technology ultimately improves only means, never ends)
- Lots of sex with lots of people (presumably your partner(s) is looking for the same elusive meaning and likewise trying to escape their meaninglessness; nobody can provide what they don’t have)
- Building up cohesive moral structure piece-by-piece (Google that and get back to me. Life is too short to redo everything)
- Living by a universal applicable rule, such as Universally Preferable Behavior theory or the non-aggression axiom popularized by libertarians, and banking on the idea that by following that rule you will find meaning (the ultimate meaning of rules requires faith in the rightness of those rules, a faith eerily shared by traditional societies)
- Politics (again this is only about means, not ends. Politics shares with its synonym “efficiency” that need to get things done as quickly as possible. But what things need to get done?)
- Music (allows you to reconstruct good feelings of the past, but the sudden meaningfulness lasts only around 3 minutes)
- Material wealth or being a workaholic, finding meaning in what you can produce because that is what you can finally see (wealthier people are the most suicidal and depressed people on the planet, the very ones on the brink of existential crises)
- Following fashions and trends, especially with the advent of social media (fashions are fickle; it is unclear how one can find ultimate meaning by seeking the approval of young people, who haven’t finished growing)
- Positive Thinking: denying badness and finding sanctuary in human progress or evolution and finding meaning in being a small part of it (just read today’s newspaper and you’ll find a mixed bag at best)
Rejection of the traditional values of society, without readily finding any life-affirming alternatives, leaves many people on the brink of existential crisis.
“$14,322 for my x-ray? Those doctors are crooks.” Family members utter government propaganda from time to time, and it is up to us to debunk their bunk.
Forget that it is immoral to force people to subsidize programs, forget that health care is a product– no more mystical than any other. These things are true, of course, but let’s look at why exactly health care is so expensive.
When you see prices that are bananas, you just know there is something wrong with the pricing of the product. The whole idea of the market is that consumers drive prices down because they always want to get a deal– nobody wants to get screwed– and prices reflect what they will pay for the product today. But how much they are willing to pay is much higher when they are not really paying it.
Why Healthcare is so Expensive
Although it is always fun to rail against service providers and especially doctors, who wear those ridiculously presumptive costumes, it is not the doctors that we need to blame.
Vijay Boyapati, a former Google engineer, illuminated four causes of rising costs of healthcare.
1) Employer Health Insurance
Employers are expected to pay for healthcare in the United States because people “need” healthcare. People need to eat and most need to drive, yet employers don’t furnish their workers with Subway sandwiches and Chevy Cruzes.
Employers didn’t provide insurance for their employees until a 1943 tax law made this kinds of insurance tax-free. And besides, employers needed a lure for workers during World War II– a period of evil price controls and wage caps. Employers could sell the benefit of insurance to workers rather than offering better wages.
Employees take advantage of company expense accounts, whether they have to do with travel or healthcare or anything else. Using company money liberalizing their spending habits; whereas paying for themselves would promote a more salubrious atmosphere of spending sanity.
And it is not just on the consumer side that people tend to spend more– doctors too favor far more expensive treatments for only marginally better services. Boyapati noted, “This is the opposite of how the price mechanism works in a free market, where consumers (who are paying out of their own pocket) search for the cheapest prices and providers work hard to provide services that are equally efficacious but less costly.”
Licensure limits supply of providers, supposedly to protect patients. It also happens to maintain high wages for providers. Consumer-driven prices would allow medical houses to find the most efficient uses of their personnel. Unfortunately, the American Medical Association (AMA) makes rational allocation of resources impossible by restricting what each medical worker can do. You can argue that this regulation makes people safer, but you must admit that it shoots the costs up into space.
Obesity is perhaps the biggest health problem of 21st century America. Boyapati blamed the US government’s subsidizing of corn production for the fact that Americans consume 73 pounds of corn-based sweetener per year per person. Americans eat 10% more calories than they did in 1977, due in part to mass subsidies given to food-producers. Increases in obesity numbers cause a corresponding increase in demand for “fat” doctors- who spend their time helping out people with the diseases of fat.
4) Intellectual Property
Pharmaceutical companies enjoy government-sanctioned monopolies on their medical patents. Thus they can charge as much as they want without worrying about competing producers. Although patents might well be a legitimate cost of business put on consumers to protect innovators, it is clear that patents drive up prices by excluding competitors. The government heavily regulates patents in the healthcare industry, sharply diminishing the ability to compete.
It is not a mystery why medical costs are so high. How could it be otherwise with such a pronounced level of state intervention? Without the price sensitivity associated with free markets, companies and governments just set whatever prices they want.
Child Trends published its annual international report World Family Map 2014: Mapping Family Change and Child Well-Being. The World Family Map Project “monitors family well-being and investigates how family characteristics affect children’s healthy development around the globe.” It follows trends in the family because it is “the core institution for child-rearing worldwide.” Strong families produce “positive child outcomes.” Not earth-shattering truths, but truths nonetheless. The latest annual report looks at 16 indicators to measure changes in family structure, family socioeconomics and family processes.
I Family Structure
The number of parents and extended family members in a child’s household influence the human and financial resources available to the child.
It should not be surprising that the ideal household for a child is the married two-parent household wherein the child gets lots of attention and more financial resources. Changes in the family structure around the globe have decimated the two-parent household in some regions. Yet, despite an overall decline in the two-parent household, the majority of global households still have this traditional composition.
Who’s Taking Care of the Children?
Children thrive in two-parent households. The regions with the highest rates of these households are Asia and the Middle East, with nearly 90% of children living in two-parent households. The highest rate is 94%, in Jordan. These are more traditional societies compared to those in the West, where a significant minority (20%) of children in North America, Europe and Oceania live in single parent households. Only 69% of American children live with both parents.
Children in South Africa have the worst parental contact rates: 43% live with one parent and 20% live without either parent. AIDS orphans fill the South African landscape.
Decline of Marriage
Marriage has played a lavishly important role in the families around the world throughout all of time. But there have been some dramatic changes in recent history, triggering great variation in family structure. Cohabitation, divorce and non-marital childbearing have seen nontrivial increases in the last generation, at least in Europe, the Americans and Oceania.
The World Family Map measured the number of individuals in their reproductive years (18-49) in either marriage or cohabitation relationships: the most “coupled” countries were India, Indonesia and Egypt; the most “single” countries were South Africa, Singapore and Chile. South Africa was the lowest, with just 43% in unions of any kind.
The highest cohabitation societies were found in Canada (19%), Sweden (25%), France (25%), and Peru (38%). Cohabitation is a dramatic change from the previously strong marriage culture in Europe and North America, but this kind of union is not such a new phenomenon in South America, where couples have chosen non-marital unions for a long time. The United States cohabitation rate is at 9%, according to the report.
Kids Without Married Parents
The kids who do the best in a litany of performance areas, from academic success to social behavior, have two parents who are married to each other. That is why the World Family Stats report measured the number of children in homes with unmarried or single parents. Unmarried parents are a huge problem in South America, where the majority of children grow up in such homes. One of these countries, Columbia, places 84% of its children in this situation. France and Sweden are two European countries where the majority of children are born in homes without married parents. A particularly telling statistic, in many European countries the average age at first childbirth is actually lower than age at first marriage. There is a range in North American homes, from 27% in Canada to 41% in the US to 55% in Mexico. Africa displays far more variety, ranging from 6% in Nigeria to 63% in South Africa.
Fewer, and Fewer Kids
Unless you have been listening only to propaganda from environmentalist fear-mongers, you are probably aware that people in the developed world are not having enough children. Rich societies are not replacing themselves in adequate numbers to continue the economic growth they have enjoyed for centuries. Immigrants can provide short-term solutions, but not without transforming the cultures which require them in the long-term.
The report said that European fertility rates are under the replacement level, despite gains since hitting their lows in the early 2000s. Using the report’s numbers from 2011, the Middle East is replacing itself just fine, with the exception of Turkey which, at a fertility rate of 2.1, has fallen to the minimum replacement level— close to that of the United States (1.9). Sub-Saharan Africa has mostly high fertility levels, ranging from a low of 2.4 in South Africa to a high of 6.1 in Uganda.
Lower fertility is not just a problem of Europe and the United States; the fertility rate in every country in East Asia is 1.6 or lower. And Eastern Europe is even lower than Eastern Asia, when comparing regions. But the lowest rates for individual countries are found in Asia. The Koreans have very low fertility rates (1.4) and so do the Chinese, regardless of where they live: 1.6 in China, 1.3 in Singapore and 1.1 in Taiwan. That means Chinese low fertility rates might have very little to do with the one-child policy on the mainland.
II Family Socioeconomics
Socioeconomics measures the resources that support child well-being. These include material resources as well as human resources and government resources. In other word: how much money and education do kids have?
Poverty is particularly bad for children: it hurts their physical and emotional health. The World Bank measures absolute poverty by numbering how many people live on less than $1.25 (USD) per day. Incredible improvements have been made worldwide in lifting children out of poverty in the past few decades. But poverty today is still a major problem in several areas. The highest poverty rates were, unsurprisingly, found in Africa, with 88% of Congo in poverty and 68% in Nigeria and Tanzania. The lowest African poverty rates were in Ghana (29%) and South Africa (14%). Some parts of Oceania also have high levels of extreme poor. Asian countries range from 0% in Malaysia to 13% in China to 33% in India—an incredibly high number for such a large country. Central and South American countries have international poverty rates under 10% for the most part, although Bolivia has 16% living on under $1.25 per day. The Middle East, Mexico and Eastern Europe have less than two percent of their peoples beneath the international poverty line.
First, check out the amazing progress: in 1990-92 the world had 23% of people undernourished; by 2010-12 the number had fallen to 15%.
Undernourished children are more likely to have physical problems (blindness, stunted growth) and mental developmental problems. It is a cyclical and societal problem. Malnourished mothers give birth to malnourished children and, according to the report, undernourishment in a country’s children can cause up productivity losses of up to 3% GDP, just from this lack of nourishment. Countries with the worst numbers on undernourishment for 2011-13 were Ethiopia (37%), Tanzania (33%), and Uganda (30%). The other countries with major nourishment issues, in order of percentage, were Kenya, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Bolivia, India, Philippines, Peru and China.
Another socioeconomic indicator of children’s overall well-being is the education level of a child’s parents. This is one of the complexities that show you how impossible it is to simply give money to families in an effort to lower inequality. What would it matter how much money a child’s parents had if his parents were total dummies? Successful parents give their children far more than money: they pass on culture and education and a love of learning. The World Family Stats report said that well-educated parents are more likely to give to their children “extracurricular activities, books, cognitive stimulation, and high educational expectations.”
The measure used to indicate parental education is simple: the percentage of kids living in households wherein the head has finished secondary education (high school or equivalency test). Note that the household head does not have to be a parent; it could be the grandparent, as is the case in one out of five Russian households.
Using date ranging from 2000-12, the report found that the highest rates of household heads with at least a secondary education were Japan and South Korea at 88% and 87%, several Western European countries at over 80%, the United States at 85% and Israel at 77%. China had 34%, India 18% and Malaysia only 12%. The Malaysia figure is striking when you consider its extremely low poverty rate. In the Middle East, a particularly low parental education country was Turkey, with only 31% of household heads graduating high school. The lowest rates worldwide were found in sub-Saharan Africa, ranging from 1% (!) to 26%.
III Family Processes
Measures the level of interaction within families by examining communication patterns, satisfaction levels and time spent together.
Measuring family processes is harder to quantify than other indicators of family health. One of the problems is that the surveys ask subjective questions. The other problem is that it only asked questions of seven or eight countries, giving a less than global picture of family processes.
A subjective survey of “family satisfaction” found that somewhere between about one-half and two-thirds of Western European and Asian families were satisfied in their family life. The highest satisfaction level is in Chile (74%) and the lowest level is in the region of Eastern Europe, with only 31% feeling satisfied.
Russia seemed to fare badly in these surveys, scoring last out of eight countries on the question of how many feel “completely or very satisfied” with their family life (31%), and also on how many couples report low levels of disagreement about household work (only 55% reported low levels). Apparently 88% of couples in the Philippines understand their respective roles in the household and don’t complain about them.
Another survey gauged the amount of quality time families were spending together by researching how commonly 15-year olds eat their main meal with their families. The least talkative teenagers in the study were in South Korea, where nearly less than two-thirds socialize with their families at dinnertime; Italian teenagers cannot shut up, however, with 94% of them sharing that main meal. The research showed that children who ate meals with their families more frequently enjoyed higher scores in reading literacy.
The fundamental makeup of the family is shaping up to be far more traditional in Asia and the Middle East. Wealthy Western countries are seeing fewer and fewer two-parent households, which does not bode well for the future generations in the West. The family in the west is crumbling: fewer couples are having kids, and fewer couples are getting married. The children who do arise in the West, do so in an environment freer of commitment. Latin American children are being born into families without married parents. Asians are not having children. Africans are having children, but too many of them are in extreme poverty—living on less than $1.25 a day. The Middle East, Mexico, Eastern Europe and Malaysia are doing surprisingly well on poverty numbers. Impressive and life-saving improvements have been made over the last 20 years on the problem of undernourishment; the numbers are still way too bad in places like Kenya and India and China and several parts of South America. The recipe for family success is always in the fundamentals: get married, spend quality times with your children, make sure they get enough to eat. The World Family Stats report showed some positive improvements in poorer countries and worrying trends in wealthier countries.
Walter Block and William Barnett’s answer is NO! And their reason is simple: scale of values is incompatible with Singularism, which must be true.
This idea of Singularism is a big deal to Block and Barnett; the two scholars had previously co-authored a paper positing that the Austrians start going by the clunky name “the Singularity School of Thought.” Basically, the singularity principle means that all of our actions are based on choosing one option above all others.
Scale of Values
Two of the most prominent Austrians in history, Murray Rothbard and Carl Menger, supported the idea of a scale of values. And it makes a lot of sense. The idea is that each human actor has a hierarchical scale of values out of which he makes every decision. He values A more than B, values B more than C, and so on. They see people as making decisions based on, not just one value ranking—that would be simple, but many separate value rankings all at the same time. Carl Menger also adds to the decision-making process an added layer of complexity: levels of utility. So that, people are making decisions based on maybe hundreds of distinct value rankings simultaneously.
Block and Barnett wonder if humans are really going through such a complex process for their every decision or if there is something simpler, more limited going on.
Singularism: One Choice at a Time
The authors saw a “contradiction” between Rothbard and Menger’s scale of values and Ludwig von Mises’ theory of singularism. The core issue for Mises (and now Block) is that only one single human action can take place at one time. Therefore, a person cannot make multiple decisions/actions at the same time. Block concedes that such a hierarchy of values might well exist in the form of “preferences,” but says that this is outside the domain of economics, which is only concerned with choice. Block and Barnett conclude, “Economic action consists of choosing one thing, and setting aside all others. It is logically impossible to do more than one thing at a time. Yet, that is precisely the implication of the scale of values” (91).
- Barnett, William II and Walter Block, Scale of values violates singularism Dialogue, Vol. 3, 2009. pp. 81-91
Walter Block explains that, what is truly unique about the Austrian School of economics its particular methodologies and its radical policy ideas.
Truths You Can’t Deny
The Austrian School is based on the insights we get from knowing that man acts purposefully. The lovely thing about this argument is you can’t deny it! To deny it would be in itself a purposeful act. Boom!
Block writes, “For Austrians, economic theory is correct if and only if it starts with correct principles, and utilizes a logical chain of reasoning. Statistics can illustrate economic axioms, but can never test them” (17). The clearest way to think about it is to understand the problem is that economists often wish they worked in a hard or empirical science. But Block likens economics more to mathematics: “No one goes out and tests the Pythagorean theorem, or measures triangles to see if they really have 180 degrees.”
Beyond the basic principle, there are many additional undeniable insights derivative of purposeful action. All voluntary trade is done for mutual benefit. We know this from the very fact they are making the trade. People act in such ways as to make their futures more desirable. Some implications are more specific: “The minimum wage causes unemployment for unskilled workers with productivity levels below that stipulated by the law” (16).
These are simple truths. The Austrian School depends on these simple truths.
Radical Policy Ideas
With regard to the private political positions of individual economists, Block gleefully catalogued the Austrians as the most “extreme advocates of economic freedom, free enterprise, property rights, etc” (18).
Just what are these radical ideas?
1) Highway and Road Privatization
Many Austrians want to privatize roads. Tens of thousands of Americans die on roads every year in a system of what Dr. Block calls “road socialism.” “Traffic congestion is to highways as long queues were to Soviet groceries,” he wrote. “At zero price, the tragedy of the commons comes into play” (18). This is not an obscure issue for Dr. Block to bring up; he has written an entire book on the topic. He argues that the profit and loss system would incentivize road managers to do a better job with traffic flow and safety.
2) Anti Trust
Most Austrians are against all anti trust legislation. Not only does Block disagree with the very idea of monopoly market failure, but there is another problem here beyond anti trust itself. Companies can be guilty of “crimes” no matter what they do. They can charge too much and be a price gouger, charge too little and be a predatory pricer, or charge just the right price and be a price fixer.
3) Market Failures
It is not failures in the market that cause poverty, say the Austrians, but rather government itself. And, furthermore, it is the government’s welfare programs that exacerbate the problem of poverty by making poor people dependent on something fickle (politicians) instead of something perhaps slightly less fickle (themselves).
4) Property Rights
Austrians emphasize the moral or ethical aspect of property rights, whereas most other free market economists emphasize the material importance of property in the creation of wealth.
The Austrian School is different from other schools of economic thought by emphasizing the importance on a strong theoretical framework—and not endless empirical models. In consequence, the Austrians diverge from even many free-market economists on important fundamental topics, like property rights.
A Comparison of Economic Correctness and Political Correctness, Humanomics, Vol 20, No 3 – 4, 2004, pp. 14 – 25
In a 2006 issue of The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Walter Block and William Barnett II teamed up to defend liberty in the article “Rejoinder to Critics of Laissez-Faire Capitalism.” They were responding to critics who took issue with their controversial thesis: The key to promoting prosperity for people and for the environment is to “reign in government to the greatest extent possible.”
Is Walter Block himself a state-worshiper?
Upon first reading of this essay I was a bit confused, as if the authors seemed to be distancing themselves from anarchistic ideas, denying accusations that they had said they favored a “stateless social order” in their previous thesis. Walter Block IS an anarchist and I will note at the start that Block made sure to footnote that “greatly regrets” the kind of language he and Barnett II had used.
State Worshiper #1
Nevertheless, Block and Barnett objected to J.A. Batten and P.G. Szilagyi’s claim that large corporations have the ability to “impose” their will on people. Economic and moral power, yes, for a time, but not political power to impose against human wills. Block and Barnett noted that the demise of creepy private companies like Enron and WorldCom testify to the health of the markets because these jerks no longer exist. And yet governments, who make these Enron-types look like “petty thieves,” remain intact.
Batten and Szilagyi worship the state so fully that they argued on the grounds that the most interventionist governments “all have the highest individual incomes.” Block cited his own research in his 1996 book Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995 against this idea, adding that, even if it were somehow true, it would be “despite government interventionism, not because of it” (18). One wonders how they could have such blind faith in the positive effects of government interventionism. Pure state worship.
State Worshiper #2
The next state-worshiper, C. Higgins, repeated the tired idea that income-inequality has increased in the places where the free market has flourished.
In fact, the opposite is true, according to Block and Barnett. The markets actually promote income equality. It is a positive-sum game. “In contrast, when a politician or bureaucrat prospers, he does so at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayer, as this is a coercive, zero-sum game” (19).
In reality, it is the dictator and his fellas who steal off the largest proportion of wealth in society. The people in such societies are quite equal and quite poor.
Conservatives typically laugh at those who want to save the world. But that is exactly what Stan Evans and other founders of the modern conservative movement wanted to do: save the world from communism. They wanted to take over the Republican Party, then take over the nation and thereby defeat communism in the world. Anti-communism was the defining issue of the time for conservatives. Evans wrote a book defending Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy and his crusade against domestic communist, a 600-pager called “Blacklisted by History: The Untold History of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies.”
Stan Evans, who died at 80 on March 3, 2015, played an important role at the beginning of the modern American conservative movement. He authored the Sharon Statement in September 1960, a defining document of the conservative movement which laid out the guiding values for the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). The Heritage Foundation summarized the principles in the Sharon Statement:
“Free will and moral authority come from God; political and economic liberty are essential for a free people and free institutions; government must be strictly and constitutionally limited; the market economy is the economic system most compatible with freedom; and Communism must be defeated, not merely contained.”
Evans worked a journalist in Indianapolis in his 20s and later taught journalism at Troy University. He also headed up the conservative-backed National Journalism Center in Washington for 25 years.