Monthly Archives: December 2015

Minimum Wage: Sanders Vs. Trump

Trump and Sanders recently battled over the minimum wage.

Trump argued the minimum wage is overhigh. Sanders of course wants a higher minimum wage. And both want a higher market wage.

However post-Ron Unz revolution, I’d hoped by now everyone on the Right would also be calling for a higher minimum wage, not only a higher market wage.

As a rule, to accomplish a right-wing goal, frequently the opposite of what is perceived as the right-wing means is needed to accomplish that goal. And frequently the culprit behind this confusion is neo-liberalism. The minimum wage issue is no different.

In an ideal utopia, conservatives are in agreement with neo-liberals: There would be no minimum wage. However, we do not live in utopia.

The minimum-wage-as-right-wing argument is somewhat cutting-edge and new. VDARE and Steve Sailer got behind it early on, but the concept is still sweeping the right-wing, still waking people up.

The minimum wage argument is in part that unskilled workers flood into the US to undercut American workers, drive down wages. If we set a high minimum wage, then there’d be reduced incentive to lower the market wage via immigration, because the minimum wage would create a lower boundary. The minimum wage would create unemployment, but that could encourage Americans to actually defend their interests, demand for example that e-verify be enforced so that employers mayn’t hire illegals. It could be made legal to pay teenagers less to encourage their employment. Unemployed Americans might also stand with unions and demand that something, anything, be made again in the US. India worries about the Indian trade deficit due to gold imports; why don’t Americans speak up about their own massive trade deficit? As Paul Craig Roberts warned (paraphrasing), “A first world society requires first world jobs.”

Note: Both Ron Unz and Donald Trump tend to want high quality immigrants (mostly Asians) who will make much more than minimum wage, undercutting American workers but also relieving labour bottlenecks in the economy. So, they are not taking the numbersUSA position of plainly reducing overall immigration numbers as low as possible.

George Will, a Phony Conservative, Attempts to Gatekeep Conservatism

George will has his panties in a wad over Donald Trump and attempts to protect the integrity of conservatism as he sees it in this rant. Who does George Will think he is fooling acting as the defender of conservatism? Sam Francis had this pretender’s number 30 years ago. (Sorry for the odd spacing, but the original sources was in columns so that’s how it pasted.)

Although Will is sometimes called a
“neo-conservative,” he is not one. Neoconservatives
typically derive more or
less conservative policy positions from essentially
liberal premises. Will in fact does
the opposite: he derives from more or less
unexceptionable premises of classical
conservatism policy positions that are
often congruent with the current liberal
agenda. It is because he accepts, and
wants to be accepted by, the “achievements”
of modem liberalism that he ignores
or sneers at the serious conservative
thinkers and leaders of our time who
have sought to break liberal idols and that
he voices no criticism of the powers that
support liberalism. It is therefore not surprising
that his commentary is welcomed
in and rewarded by liberal power centers.
They have little to fear from him and his
ideas and much to gain if his version of
“conservatism” should gain currency. He
enjoys every prospect of a bright future in
their company. ~ Sam Francis, Modern Age, Spring 1986

Rough Ideas on How to Cut Healthcare Costs

Nationalized health care is all the rage nowadays, seems to have become all but a certainty.

However, I’d like to propose how costs might be cut to make healthcare more affordable in the free market.

Firstly, the US needs more doctors, which would lower their pay. Since the US is today very centralised, I suggest the US federal government build medical schools and subsidise tuition. In other areas, the federal government should largely get out of education, but that’s another topic.

Secondly, doctors suffer under malpractice insurance. While doctors should be liable for malpractice, most juries struggle to understand medical cases. So, a solution might be to fill malpractice trials with juries of medical doctors and professors. If necessary, these doctors could be from another area, to prevent bias.

Thirdly, drug companies. Americans are currently charged more than the rest of the world for drugs. Perhaps this is unfair. Bernie Sanders has been preaching on this, and I believe he’s the Ron Paul of the Democrats, worth listening to even if ultimately disagreeing.

Fourthly, Obamacare is inefficient and insecure. Medical records are to be digitised, transferred online, a security risk; and unnecessary regulations have been added to hospitals and doctors. Small practices have frequently joined hospitals to afford the new costs, reducing this segment of small business.

I agree with many on the so-called political Left that Wall Street is looting America, but I believe it would be better to thusly lower medical costs than to socialise healthcare. What America needs is higher wages and more jobs, not socialised healthcare.

China Implements Social Credit System

From Zerohedge:

“The owners of China’s largest social networks have partnered with the government to create something akin to the U.S. credit score — but, instead of measuring how regularly you pay your bills, it measures how obediently you follow the party line.”

This is to become compulsory in 2020. Scary stuff. And it’s easy to see how America’s “War on Terror” could take a similar turn, eventually leading to abuse of political dissidents, for example those speaking against corruption.

While this “statism” is frightening, I always find it ironic how Libertarians portray individualism as the antithesis.

If seeking truly anti-statist societies, one would venture to the divided Middle East or to Africa, places where man continues to be organised by tribe and faith.

A roadmap to “statism” would look like the following: tribalism –> individualism –> socialism. The individualism phase serves to break down group bonds, allowing for individuals to then be absorbed by the state.

Most of us would not view tribal chaos as utopian, but resistance to statism would seem to involve a degree of return to a more-tribal or more peasant-like existence, perhaps something like the Catholic ideal of subsidiarity. And were the state to collapse, society would naturally return to a tribal existence in the absence of the security provided by a state.

Since Marx is still the bogeyman of the Libertarians, I call attention to Marx’s “Theory of History“, which I can just pull up from wikipedia (though I have the relevant book if demanded of me).

Marx argues that capitalism is the predecessor to socialism. Capitalism breaks man down into a proletariat mass that owns little capital, depends on wages. And it is dominated by a small capitalist elite. Modern society looks somewhat different, but the point is that capitalism is seen by Marx/Engels as a natural predecessor of socialism. And it is this breaking down of traditions (creative destruction) and the wealth gap that creates the environment ripe for socialist revolution.

So, if truly wanting to oppose socialism, it would seem desireable to encourage a larger middle class, wider distribution of capital, perhaps a larger domestic (things made domestically as opposed to purchased) economy as well. (Note: a large middle class is not the same as opposing hierarchy. A hierarchy of wealth is not the only form of hierarchy possible in a society.)

And yet, we see so many on the Right defending wealth gaps, promoting individualism, declaring even that “greed is good”, working for the environment most fertile for the very socialist revolution they claim to oppose.

And individuals and nuclear families cannot hope to both work and master finance (investments), politics, culture (for raising their children), and charities. As individuals, we’re inevitably reliant upon either individual strangers or the state. A society broken into individuals is a society of patsies just begging to be manipulated and exploited. If we aren’t captured by an Orwellian nightmare, we’ll suffer some other doom. And no superior IQ, no Nietzschean will, no Social Darwinism should be relied upon to naturally make some individuals superior to others. In modern society, groups triumph, which is largely why Jews are so dominant and why individualistic whites are so weak.

Thus, what are needed to resist “statism” are group ties and a questioning of classical liberalism, the opposite of what most Libertarians call for.

With Defenders of Freedom like this, who needs “Statists”? To cure our societal ailment, we should go to the root of the problem: classical liberalism and the Enlightenment.

Thoughts on the GOP #OmnibusBill Surrender

As anyone who knows me knows, I have no love loss for the Republican Party Establishment, but even I just assumed that a majority of House Republicans would vote against the omnibus spending bill, due to the outcry of the base, and it would pass because of the votes of a majority of the Dems. It passed 316 – 113 overall and 150 – 95 among the Republican caucus. Good grief! Even I underestimated the perfidy of the modern GOP. And you can’t just blame this on the GOP “Establishment.” 150 of your House members is the rank-and-file. Every Republican yea voter should be primaried.

William Lind Virtually Endorses Donald Trump

Prominent conservative scholar William Lind has written this essay. In it, he virtually endorses Donald Trump. I don’t know if it is fair to characterize it as an outright endorsement, but his thoughts about Trump relative to the other candidates are clear.

“…he is the only candidate who understands what a Fourth Generation world will be like. The hysterical denunciations from all other candidates except Senator Cruz demonstrate they don’t get it. While that alone may not be enough to indicate Trump would be a good president, it strongly suggests none of his opponents are fit to hold the office. Whether they like it or not, or understand it or not, Fourth Generation war is what they and this country are facing.”

Read more here…

Chuck Baldwin Endorses Rand Paul

Baldwin has been saying some positive things about Trump, so this comes as a bit of a surprise. I respect Baldwin, so I’ll pass this on. I think the mistake he makes is in prioritizing the police state issues ahead of the immigration issue. This is from his Facebook page:

Faithful readers of this post know that I have previously provided objective commentary–complete with pluses and minuses–on most of the Republican presidential candidates. They also know that I have spoken quite positively about Donald Trump. But heretofore I have endorsed no one. Until now.

First, I believe the biggest threats to liberty we face have NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism. We have far more to fear from those miscreants in Washington, D.C., and from the international bankers at the Federal Reserve than any radical Muslim. Hence, all of the fearmongering about Muslim jihad and Sharia Law in America only plays into the hands of the globalists who are orchestrating all of this madness.

Second, I am absolutely convinced that the greatest threats to our liberty are, 1) The neocon wars of aggression around the world–especially in the Middle East, 2) A burgeoning Police State here in the United States.

I have now had plenty of time to examine the candidates regarding his or her commitment to defeating these two great threats to our liberty; and there is only ONE Republican candidate that sees these threats and would use the power of the Oval Office to defeat them–or at least curtail them:

That candidate is RAND PAUL.

I know that Rand is NOT his dad. I am not nearly as excited about Rand as I was Ron. And there are several issues with which I disagree with Rand.

But I firmly believe Rand gets the whole neocon war issue and would put a stop to it if he were President. In this regard, Rand might be the ONLY major party presidential candidate who could potentially avert WWIII. I further believe Rand gets the Zionist issue and would not be a patsy for the Israeli lobby.

I also believe Rand truly sees the growing Police State in this country and would rein in these out-of-control federal Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

NONE of the other candidates would do anything significant to change America’s foreign policy or to rein in the growing Police State in our country.

Accordingly, as I pan the two major party presidential candidates, there is only one choice in 2016: RAND PAUL.

This is the the comment I posted:

The biggest threat to liberty we face is the country turning irreversibly Blue in a couple of decades if current immigration trends continue. Immigration is the only issue that matters because all the other issue rise and fall on the country not turning Blue.

David Stockman Warns of Shrinking GPP (Gross Planet Product)

David Stockman warns of Shrinking GPP (Gross Planet Product):

For years now the dollar has been a “funding” currency in the global casino—-something the gamblers borrowed or effectively sold short in order to pile into higher yielding EM debt, equities and commodities until they peaked awhile back.

But the fantastic global credit bubble summarized below has now reached its apogee. China and the EM economies are rolling over into a debilitating deflation, thereby catalyzing the mother of all margins calls. This time subprime is lettered in Chinese and speaks with a Portuguese accent.

In fact, it is already happening, even by the lights of the IMF. The world’s nominal GDP has dropped 5% in dollar terms during the past year, and that’s what counts because the world’s $225 trillion tower of debt is heavily denominated in dollars, or linked to it through exchange rates, most especially the Chinese RMB.

Translation: There’s increased risk the US dollar will continue to strengthen and the US stock market crash, as well as financial sector risk.

Inventory levels are also rising, and manufacturing is down. Also, falling commodities are generally seen as a warning sign.

The recent dip in stocks (oil driven) might recover near-term. No one knows. I simply wish to post on the warning signs. Stocks are considered a relatively risky asset class.

“I’m not as concerned about the return on my money as I am the return of my money.”