May 22nd 2010 will go down in infamy as the day the Statist forever sunk his claws into the American people. President Obama, though strong arm tactics managed to overcome an already weakened Republican party to pass the most far reaching piece of social engineering in American history. It is true, Social Security began the wave of entitlements that then extended to Medicare and Medicaid, but none of the previous attempts ever accomplished what this bill has done.
Social Security was passed at a time when the American people were beaten and tired. The great depression created a situation that made the American people amenable to this programmatic redistribution of wealth. The government relished in the idea that a new tax on its citizens would result in a never ending pot of money that wouldn’t be paid out in full. This line of thinking came when the average lifespan of an American was 62 years. Now the average life expectancy of an American is over 70. While this may seem like a small difference, consider the economic ramifications of this trend on a system that was designed to provide a modest income for the most unfortunate for only 3-4 years.
Today, Social Security has become the primary source of retirement income for the vast majority of the American populace and Medicare the primary source of medical care for that same demographic. Now that the people are living longer and drawing more benefits over that period, the system is under immense pressure. This increase in life expectancy was made possible through dramatic advances in medical technology and the Statist understands this, which is why the Statist seeks to destroy the very system that made it possible.
The average monthly Social Security check is $1085. Now multiply that same amount by the number of beneficiaries and the government is paying out an astounding $56 billion dollars each month. Even a single year’s reduction in life expectancy is a huge economic boom for the general treasury and the Statist desires access to that additional money.
The American medical system pre May 22nd was based upon free market capitalism which fostered and rewarded innovation. While this innovation resulted in dramatic increases in technology and life saving drugs, it also came at a cost in the form of increased insurance premiums. In effect, the American consumer traded increased life expectancy for increased insurance premiums. For some, that trade-off finally reached a breaking point, and this allowed the Statist the opportunity they needed to demonize the medical system vis a vis the insurance companies that made it possible. By reducing the ability of insurance companies to subsidize the development of new technologies, the level of care and life expectancy of your Average American will drop.
The Goal of the Statist is to addict the American people to government handouts as a means to control them. They proclaim health care a right, they proclaim home ownership a right and they act to institute policies that accomplish their goals. Once the American people believe that these things are in fact right, there is no way to take them away. Calls for Social Security or Medicare reform will be met with protests and political campaigns designed to defeat the proposer. It is an effective tactic that both sides of the political spectrum use to their benefit.
Now some of you may be saying, “universal health care is a noble endeavor, one all rich countries should be striving to meet”, and on the surface, that sounds great. America is the richest most prosperous nation in the world, surely if Cuba, or the UK or Canada can offer its citizens universal health care, we can too. But America is only the richest most prosperous nation in the world because it has allowed its people to live with relative economic freedom. Once that freedom is removed, the riches and the prosperity will fall, not only here in America but all around the world.
Now people constantly point to the socialist states of Europe as an example of success for the Statist ideology, but I would offer that their success, which was and is subsidized through U.S. military power, is only viable as long as America is free. Once the protection of the American military is retracted and the market for European goods dries up here in the U.S., Europe will begin to feel the true costs of their socialist dealings. America may be the last domino to be placed in the series, but the first that will cause the series to fall.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Monday, July 6, 2009
Thom Hartman gets Schooled by Myron Ebell
While it takes more time to tell to tell the truth, it is definitely worth doing, especially considering that Climate Change policy is designed to control every aspect of human existence.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Carbon Credits – Where Does the Money Come From?
Carbon Credits – Where Does the Money Come From?
As congress moves forward with sweeping climate legislation, many groups are preparing plans and gearing up for the promised windfall profits they will supposedly be eligible to receive. Groups in Washington, DC and throughout the country are working feverishly to stake their claim on carbon credit money, but few have actually taken the time to ask themselves where this money is coming from.
The first thing that people should know about carbon credits is that they represent transfer payments and not new money. Aggregate wealth can not be created out of thin air no matter what carbon credit trading advocates tell you.
The money generated by a cap-and-trade program is money that is taken from covered industries such as coal-fired power generation and steel production. These industries are forced by government regulation to purchase the right to emit carbon dioxide. If the story ended here, many credit seekers would simply shrug and say “So what?”. The problem is the story doesn’t end here because these industries can easily pass along the costs of purchasing emission permits to their customers. The net affect of credit seeking behavior is a realization that the increased cost of electricity and certain carbon intensive goods have been paid for by you and your neighbor in the form of increased utility bills and more expensive machinery.
There are those within the greater agricultural community who have been seduced by the promise of carbon credit payments for basically continuing to operate their business as usual. While I fully support the right for people to earn their own living, one can hardly claim that receiving carbon credit payments is “making money”. Mandatory carbon trading, specifically for agriculture is nothing but a system of wealth transfer from the very industries farmers rely on for their livelihood. While farmers may receive a credit for no-tilling their land, this payment will likely be completely offset if not out right exceeded by an increase in transportation, fertilizer, irrigation and machinery costs.
So where do carbon credits come from? The answer is staring you in the face as you look in the mirror. You are subsidizing this credit trading scheme by paying increased costs on the products you use the most. Carbon credits ARE transfer payments, but many people fail to see that this transfer is happening in their own wallet.
As congress moves forward with sweeping climate legislation, many groups are preparing plans and gearing up for the promised windfall profits they will supposedly be eligible to receive. Groups in Washington, DC and throughout the country are working feverishly to stake their claim on carbon credit money, but few have actually taken the time to ask themselves where this money is coming from.
The first thing that people should know about carbon credits is that they represent transfer payments and not new money. Aggregate wealth can not be created out of thin air no matter what carbon credit trading advocates tell you.
The money generated by a cap-and-trade program is money that is taken from covered industries such as coal-fired power generation and steel production. These industries are forced by government regulation to purchase the right to emit carbon dioxide. If the story ended here, many credit seekers would simply shrug and say “So what?”. The problem is the story doesn’t end here because these industries can easily pass along the costs of purchasing emission permits to their customers. The net affect of credit seeking behavior is a realization that the increased cost of electricity and certain carbon intensive goods have been paid for by you and your neighbor in the form of increased utility bills and more expensive machinery.
There are those within the greater agricultural community who have been seduced by the promise of carbon credit payments for basically continuing to operate their business as usual. While I fully support the right for people to earn their own living, one can hardly claim that receiving carbon credit payments is “making money”. Mandatory carbon trading, specifically for agriculture is nothing but a system of wealth transfer from the very industries farmers rely on for their livelihood. While farmers may receive a credit for no-tilling their land, this payment will likely be completely offset if not out right exceeded by an increase in transportation, fertilizer, irrigation and machinery costs.
So where do carbon credits come from? The answer is staring you in the face as you look in the mirror. You are subsidizing this credit trading scheme by paying increased costs on the products you use the most. Carbon credits ARE transfer payments, but many people fail to see that this transfer is happening in their own wallet.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Precautionary Principle
Ned Ludd is alive and well today in the modern environmental movement. As our world changes and societies develop, the need for advanced technology to help solve or mitigate our problems becomes increasingly apparent. Though Luddites openly expressed their hatred of technology, the neo-environmentalist uses half-truth and psudo-science to hide this aversion. This relatively new way to deride technology is called the Precautionary Principle.
The Precautionary Principle, a bi-product of the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-Safety, simply states “that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” On the surface, the Precautionary Principle may seem reasonable, but one must only look below the surface to see that mere speculation is enough to trigger its application.
Let us forget for the time being that the Precautionary Principle asks advocates of technology to prove a negative (a logical impossibility) and concentrate on its intended purpose. Proponents of the Principle create an impossible situation whereby anything new can be rejected on the basis that any amount of evidence is insufficient to show no harm.
For example, if a new technology is shown to increase food production but concern about its effects are voiced, one must prove that such an application does not have negative long-term effects in order for it to be utilized. In simple terms, advocates of precaution are baring the use of a technology based on speculation. This both hampers the process of gathering evidence, and ensures that new introductions of technology face insurmountable opposition.
Conversely, the Precautionary Principle can be use by supporters of a specific action to bolster their claims of a need to act. Take Global Warming for instance. Like it or not, the debate is NOT over and scientific consensus has NOT been met and this simple fact is not overlooked by precautionary advocates. Using a lack on scientific consensus as the catalyst, the Precautionary Principle will induce action.
The Precautionary Principle is an unscientific method of constructing an argument so that advocates of precaution have an unfair advantage. Thankfully, this advantage only works in the court of public opinion since neither science nor fact really matter. The true danger lies in the invariable inclusion of public opinion into decisions that should be left to those who value logical, fact based and scientific discourse.
The Precautionary Principle, a bi-product of the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-Safety, simply states “that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” On the surface, the Precautionary Principle may seem reasonable, but one must only look below the surface to see that mere speculation is enough to trigger its application.
Let us forget for the time being that the Precautionary Principle asks advocates of technology to prove a negative (a logical impossibility) and concentrate on its intended purpose. Proponents of the Principle create an impossible situation whereby anything new can be rejected on the basis that any amount of evidence is insufficient to show no harm.
For example, if a new technology is shown to increase food production but concern about its effects are voiced, one must prove that such an application does not have negative long-term effects in order for it to be utilized. In simple terms, advocates of precaution are baring the use of a technology based on speculation. This both hampers the process of gathering evidence, and ensures that new introductions of technology face insurmountable opposition.
Conversely, the Precautionary Principle can be use by supporters of a specific action to bolster their claims of a need to act. Take Global Warming for instance. Like it or not, the debate is NOT over and scientific consensus has NOT been met and this simple fact is not overlooked by precautionary advocates. Using a lack on scientific consensus as the catalyst, the Precautionary Principle will induce action.
The Precautionary Principle is an unscientific method of constructing an argument so that advocates of precaution have an unfair advantage. Thankfully, this advantage only works in the court of public opinion since neither science nor fact really matter. The true danger lies in the invariable inclusion of public opinion into decisions that should be left to those who value logical, fact based and scientific discourse.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
On Food Marketing
Food companies spend billions of dollars every year to convince us that their product is better than the next guy. Coke is better than Pepsi, McDonalds is better than Burger King. The end result of this campaign of confusion is that people make decisions based on catchy jingles or special effects filled commercials rather than what the product truly is.
If Coca Cola advertised their product as caramel colored sugar water, do you think the psychological effect would be as substantial as millions of dollars spent on creating an animated commercial staring a warm lovable polar bear cub sharing a Coke with a baby penguin? Of course not! Coca Cola created this image to evoke feelings of camaraderie where even mortal enemies can put their differences aside and enjoy a nice cold Coke.
Or how about McDonalds? Would they have much economic success if they made commercials staring anyone of the 54% of obese Americans shoveling yet another double cheese burger into their mouth as they slurp down a nice cold caramel flavored sugar water drink while they use greasy salt covered fingers to cram more French fries into an already full belly?
Wake up people!!! These commercials are designed to hide the true nature of the products we thoughtlessly consume on a daily basis which are slowly but surely destroying our bodies, health care system and our children’s future. Of course, food companies defend themselves by saying they are simply making products that people want. In reality they are doing everything in their power to convince you that you want what they are making. To do this, food companies employ armies of marketing professionals and Dr’s of Psychology in order to create fancy marketing campaigns with statistically high levels of success.
I can’t blame food companies for their clever money-making schemes. However, I can blame each and every person who refuses to see past these gimmicks and allows their body be poisoned slowly but surely by unhealthy food engineered to keep you coming back for more.
As a free market capitalist, maybe I should invent the healthy whole-grain Twinkie infused with powerful antioxidants or the 100% natural Ding Dong with real Acai berry filling. If people are going to continue to be duped into eating garbage, I might as well make a few bucks off it.
If Coca Cola advertised their product as caramel colored sugar water, do you think the psychological effect would be as substantial as millions of dollars spent on creating an animated commercial staring a warm lovable polar bear cub sharing a Coke with a baby penguin? Of course not! Coca Cola created this image to evoke feelings of camaraderie where even mortal enemies can put their differences aside and enjoy a nice cold Coke.
Or how about McDonalds? Would they have much economic success if they made commercials staring anyone of the 54% of obese Americans shoveling yet another double cheese burger into their mouth as they slurp down a nice cold caramel flavored sugar water drink while they use greasy salt covered fingers to cram more French fries into an already full belly?
Wake up people!!! These commercials are designed to hide the true nature of the products we thoughtlessly consume on a daily basis which are slowly but surely destroying our bodies, health care system and our children’s future. Of course, food companies defend themselves by saying they are simply making products that people want. In reality they are doing everything in their power to convince you that you want what they are making. To do this, food companies employ armies of marketing professionals and Dr’s of Psychology in order to create fancy marketing campaigns with statistically high levels of success.
I can’t blame food companies for their clever money-making schemes. However, I can blame each and every person who refuses to see past these gimmicks and allows their body be poisoned slowly but surely by unhealthy food engineered to keep you coming back for more.
As a free market capitalist, maybe I should invent the healthy whole-grain Twinkie infused with powerful antioxidants or the 100% natural Ding Dong with real Acai berry filling. If people are going to continue to be duped into eating garbage, I might as well make a few bucks off it.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sustainable Agriculture
Guiding Principles for a Sustainable Future for U.S. agriculture.
Economic Viability
The broad definition of sustainability includes environmental, social and economic considerations, but any standard for sustainable agriculture must first and foremost be economically viable for the producer. No matter how environmentally conscious or socially aware a standard is, if it only adds production costs it is doomed to failure.
Flexible Science-Based Metrics
In a world where increasing input prices, shrinking water tables, climate change and a growing world population pose serious risks to food production we must be flexible in our approach to confronting these challenges. Setting goals for the efficient use of natural resources needs to be based on science and reason and must be conscious of the economic impact on producers, retailers and consumers.
A one size fits all standard is not appropriate. What may work in California may not work in Texas and what works in Illinois may not work in Florida. The standard must account for regional and local differences and make accommodations for individual solutions to the challenges we face.
The standard must be focused on delivering results that producers can measure rather than on processes. It should take into account the most important issues that producers face and focus on them. It should measure what matters.
The Standard Must be Technology Neutral
If we are truly concerned about the sustainability of our industry we must take a pragmatic look at our challenges and address them using every available option. For some this may be strict adherence to the National Organic Program. For others, it may be the use of precision agriculture, conventional agrochemistry and/or biotechnology. To deny any group the use of practices that are shown to increase sustainability would be a great disservice to this effort and to U.S. producers. Our goal should not be to further segregate the food system into smaller niche markets, but to find practical solutions that make agriculture more sustainable for the broad majority of producers by focusing on results, allowing for innovation and producer choice.
Economic Viability
The broad definition of sustainability includes environmental, social and economic considerations, but any standard for sustainable agriculture must first and foremost be economically viable for the producer. No matter how environmentally conscious or socially aware a standard is, if it only adds production costs it is doomed to failure.
Flexible Science-Based Metrics
In a world where increasing input prices, shrinking water tables, climate change and a growing world population pose serious risks to food production we must be flexible in our approach to confronting these challenges. Setting goals for the efficient use of natural resources needs to be based on science and reason and must be conscious of the economic impact on producers, retailers and consumers.
A one size fits all standard is not appropriate. What may work in California may not work in Texas and what works in Illinois may not work in Florida. The standard must account for regional and local differences and make accommodations for individual solutions to the challenges we face.
The standard must be focused on delivering results that producers can measure rather than on processes. It should take into account the most important issues that producers face and focus on them. It should measure what matters.
The Standard Must be Technology Neutral
If we are truly concerned about the sustainability of our industry we must take a pragmatic look at our challenges and address them using every available option. For some this may be strict adherence to the National Organic Program. For others, it may be the use of precision agriculture, conventional agrochemistry and/or biotechnology. To deny any group the use of practices that are shown to increase sustainability would be a great disservice to this effort and to U.S. producers. Our goal should not be to further segregate the food system into smaller niche markets, but to find practical solutions that make agriculture more sustainable for the broad majority of producers by focusing on results, allowing for innovation and producer choice.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Welcome Readers
Greetings,
First thing is first. My name is Russell Williams and I am a 30 year old advocate for agriculture, food and the American farmer. For the past couple of months I have been contemplating setting up a blog to combat what I see as a travesty in the making. There is a movement taking shape today that if left to flourish, will redefine agriculture to the detriment of us all. The movement has many names, but the most prominent is the Real Food Movement.
Now, many of you may have never heard the phrase Real Food, but I would wager that most of you have heard of its constituents.
The Real Food Movement promotes sustainable, seasonal and locally grown organic food consumption. Now you may be asking, "Whats wrong with that?". On the surface I would respond by saying nothing. However, the glamor and glitz and all the window dressing placed on the Real Food Movement is designed specifically to give the impression of a Utopian food system that is more secure, healthy, environmentally friendly and socially conscious than the current system.
The truth is, the Real Food Movement is a dangerous social experiment masquerading as a cure for obesity, malnutrition, food insecurity and environmental degradation. I realize that I am entering dangerous territory here. Real Food advocates are ardent believers in this scheme and will fight back viciously to protect the illusion they are attempting to create.
This blog is designed for one purpose only, to expose the deeper agenda of the Real Food Movement. An agenda that will push our food system to the brink of collapse in order to enact sweeping social change. Though this first post provides little evidence of my claims I promise over the coming weeks and months to provide an alternate scenario that the Real Food Movement either fails to recognize or consciously suppresses.
First thing is first. My name is Russell Williams and I am a 30 year old advocate for agriculture, food and the American farmer. For the past couple of months I have been contemplating setting up a blog to combat what I see as a travesty in the making. There is a movement taking shape today that if left to flourish, will redefine agriculture to the detriment of us all. The movement has many names, but the most prominent is the Real Food Movement.
Now, many of you may have never heard the phrase Real Food, but I would wager that most of you have heard of its constituents.
The Real Food Movement promotes sustainable, seasonal and locally grown organic food consumption. Now you may be asking, "Whats wrong with that?". On the surface I would respond by saying nothing. However, the glamor and glitz and all the window dressing placed on the Real Food Movement is designed specifically to give the impression of a Utopian food system that is more secure, healthy, environmentally friendly and socially conscious than the current system.
The truth is, the Real Food Movement is a dangerous social experiment masquerading as a cure for obesity, malnutrition, food insecurity and environmental degradation. I realize that I am entering dangerous territory here. Real Food advocates are ardent believers in this scheme and will fight back viciously to protect the illusion they are attempting to create.
This blog is designed for one purpose only, to expose the deeper agenda of the Real Food Movement. An agenda that will push our food system to the brink of collapse in order to enact sweeping social change. Though this first post provides little evidence of my claims I promise over the coming weeks and months to provide an alternate scenario that the Real Food Movement either fails to recognize or consciously suppresses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
