Knowledge

Its occurred to me recently that language, writing, the printing press, the computer, and the internet may well be the greatest inventions of mankind.

With language, and writing, the information gathered by one can be shared by all.  Without the transmission of ideas we'd all need to start at the beginning.  No one would have time for things like cars and coffee machines, becasue we'd all first need to individually learn how to hunt, gather, and make fire.

Our growth has come from the accumulation of of the knowledge of those that came before us.  The more that cam before us the more knowledge that we have.

We can look at the less prosperous societies and we can find that it is the places with written language which have advanced the fastest.

For a while I had wondered why the West was so militarily superior to the East.  With reading China: A History, I discovered that until very recently the literacy rate for Chinese males was around 40%.  With literacy that low, not many people could learn by reading.  All needed to learn everything themselves, and reinvent everything themselves.  The spoken word gets garbled written words less so.

We can look at the economic advance of the world and see that the places with written words and high literacy have advanced the most.  The printing press was invented in Germany, and Europe has led the way ever since.  Is that a coincidence?

Places like China and India have economically lagged behind Europe, despite their great numbers of people occasionally inventing marvelous things.  Lots of people gives them the odds to invent things, but they do not advance on it without writing.  A chinsese guy invented gunpowder, but hundreds of years later they could still only think to use it for fireworks.  I'll bet that you can find gunpowder's uses multiplying only with writing.

And the people of the world that were just overwhelmed by stronger countries, people like "native americans" and Africans are the places that took the longest to acquire literacy.

***

More people means more advancement in ideas.

More writing and more literacy means more economic advancement.

China: A History

by John Keay

This is a great big book on the history of China.

The first point that jumps out at me is the fact that if you are not an emperor, then you'll be almost completely ignored by history.  Even if you are an emperor you'll likely get no more than a mention, unless lots of important stuff happened while you were in charge.

Then again, if we wanted to remember everybody, we'd have no time for anything else.

Another point of interest is that the name we know people by are different from what we think they are.  Confucius was not some guy's name.  His name was Kong.  The way it works "in the East" is family name, then first name or title.  Master Kong is "Kong Master," as in Kong then something approximating "fucius" for "master".  

The first Chinese emperor is known as Qin Shi Huang.  This is a "name" he picked for himself.  (I hear many Chinese pick the name they are known as as an adult, themselves.)  It actually means "first emperor."  It would be like referring to George Washington as "first president," and mentioning him by no other name or title.  First President was born in...  First President was a military officer in the French and Indian wars. First President lead the revolutionary army during the war of independence.

Apparently, the next guy was "second emperor."  And after that other dynasties took charge and changed their naming ideas.

Another interesting note is how much of China's history occurs after around 300 BC.  There is a chapter, or two, before then, but I don't recall anything about the earlier times.

One of the early empires was known as the Han.  Today the largest, numerically, ethnic group is the Han Chinese.

The Han empire was divided by some events into the "Former" and "Later" Han.  One of the most important characters in between the two empires was known as Wang Mang.  He was emperor for a while and wanted to reform the country to make it more prosperous.

He instituted price controls, divided the land equally among the citizens, and so on.

Guess what happened when he improved the lives of the poor by taking land from the wealthy, gave it to the poor, and did things like institute price controls?

A.  Prosperity ensued, Wang Mang was widely admired, and his dynasty lasted hundreds of years.

B. Nothing good, starvation and so on, his line ended with him, and all historians from the time despised him.

If you've visited this blog before, you don't need to be told which was the case.

That is not the only economic fact I found interesting.  A while before 500 AD land ownership was banned and whenever there was a war the citizens fled to wherever there wasn't a war.  Around 500 AD the various emperors determined that they needed to incentiveize staying in place, so they allowed private property to accumulate.  And the book explicitly stated that this was the last time, until Mao that China attempted to progressivize the country.  They seemed to notice that it never turned out well and they avoided much of it for around 1500 years.

Anyway, from my perspective, it seems that the various emperors can be grouped into four parts, in somewhat equal measure: the well meaning, the mean and awful, those with no interest in running an empire, and those who were too young and had regents run things for them, often to take up the title themselves and join one of the first two parts.

The succession of emperors takes up a large part of the book.  Their numbers and even the empires that they ran are too numerous to mention, or even understand after reading such a book.

***

This is a good book.  Even though I'm not as interested in India as I am in China I would read Keay's History of India if I was not already so far behind in my reading.

Recommended for those of you who are interested in lengthy readings on the whole history of China. 

Progressive Economics Don't Work, Example #52,873

I was skimming across the Wikipedia article on Ethiopia (Naughty Nomad's a fan) and I discovered the following passage:

In the beginning of the 1980s, a series of famines hit Ethiopia that affected around 8 million people, resulting in 1 million dead. Insurrections against Communist rule sprang up, particularly in the northern regions of Tigray and Eritrea.

For future reference: "lefty" politics = millions killed and starved.  see: Ethiopia, North Korea, China, Soviet Union, Cambodia.....

Socialism's Final Phase

h/t: Althouse

Remember that admittedly, proudly, socialist country of Sweden? 

‘They don’t want to integrate’: Fifth night of youth rioting rocks Stockholm

For years, Sweden – one of Europe’s most tranquil countries, famous for its attractive immigration policies and generous welfare system – has been accepting an influx of immigrants, which now make up about 15 per cent of its population. These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country’s social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.

“The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people,” the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. “The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”

“The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem,” Carlqvist added.

Do you suppose that anyone will read about this country that was once the prime example of socialists everywhere and understand that this, in one form or another, is always what socialism is reduced to?

What country will socialists point to now?

Free marketers can point to America (1865-1912) and Hong Kong as fine examples of economic freedom in action.

Don't Belive the Doom and Gloom

A post from Laissez Faire books (excerpts):

It’s not as if we have no precedents to learn from. In the old days when I sat around with other economists, conversations often turned to the news media’s complete misrepresentation of free market economics.

Perhaps the oddest thing about old-school media bias is that it effectively alienates more than half of the potential customer base — viewers who believe that free enterprise is better for society than big government policies. Besides driving viewers away from their product, the media’s hostility toward half the population was creating an opportunity for potential competitors.

It was this market opportunity, of course, that naturalized Australian-American Rupert Murdoch saw and exploited with the creation of Fox News. Today, Fox dominates the news business, at least in terms of profits. This is because many legacy media outfits compete for about half the market, while Fox is nearly alone in serving the rest. This experience ought, it seems to me, to attract entrepreneurs to serve the Fox viewership in the arenas of film and television.

***

As media and entertainment are often linked, it’s pretty clear that so-called liberals still have the advantage when it comes to influencing public opinion. Today, propaganda is often called “spin,” but whatever you call it, it is only one factor in opinion formation. The other big one is actual results.

***

One of the biggest cultural changes in modern times is the collapse of the image of California as “the Golden State.” Moreover, polls of the nation as a whole demonstrate a far more sophisticated appreciation of economic cause and effect than you would surmise if all you paid attention to were Hollywood and the MSM.

Ultimately, math trumps spin. Though there are a lot of people trying their hardest to convince America that it has permanently adopted European socialism, it isn’t true. Things have been far worse in the past, by all measures. If you don’t know this, you risk falling prey to the conservative doom-and-gloom machine, which I hate almost as much as the liberal scaremongers.

The reality is that our current mess will not be that hard to extract ourselves from, once we have surpassed our national pain threshold. Part of the reason is that there is so much innovation bottled up by high taxes and overregulation. As soon as federal policies change, this backlog will create very rapid growth, especially in the fossil fuel and biotech sectors.

I've no doubt that some bad things are coming economically.

Could it be that those of us who are predicting economic gloom have been taken in by those who favor the government?

Progressives wanted to claim that awful things would happen if the sequestration happened.  Other than the air traffic controllers being forced to skip days so that the awful sequester would show up, what were the side effects?

They predicted bad stuff would happen if the government stopped functioning, some of us are predicting bad stuff when the government goes bankrupt (or whatever).

How are these two predictions different?

***

Part of the reason is that there is so much innovation bottled up by high taxes and overregulation. As soon as federal policies change, this backlog will create very rapid growth, especially in the fossil fuel and biotech sectors.

I think I was right before I over-thought it:  let's get this government collapse over with sooner rather than later.

What do we get for our taxes?

The government spends a lot of money.  What do we get for all of that spending?

Table 4.1 lists all of the "Outlays by Agency"

Are we getting a good bang for our buck?

"Department or other unit" - What we get from it

• Legislative branch - our congressmen, and their staff, get paid
• Judicial branch - our judges get paid
• Dept. of Agriculture - we pay some farmers not to farm, so that prices go up, and it costs more to feed the poor, we pay other farmers to farm
• Dept. of Commerce - we tell people to buy stuff, if it wasn't for the Dept. of Commerce I'd never know what to do when I want milk, who else tells me to go buy some?
• Dept. of Defense - we get soldiers, tanks, submarines, and wars
• Dept. of Education - we get student loan debt and people who don't know the capitals of all 57 states
• Dept. of Energy - I thought that power plants were privately operated, this department must be in charge of banning pipelines and getting in their way, or helping the power companies by drafting rules to prevent competitors from forming
• Dept. of Health and Human Services - No Americans are poor or sick thanks to these guys
• Dept. of Homeland Security - I thought that we already had soldiers, tanks, and submarines?
• Dept. of Housing and Urban Development -blacks get government funded housing
• Dept. of the Interior - vacuums?
• Dept. of Justice - I thought we already spent billions on a "Judicial branch"?
• Dept. of Labor - encourages outsourcing
• Dept. of State - flies some of our politicians around the world, I'd pay double for only one-way tickets
• Dept. of Transportation - $1,000,000 bus stops, speeding tickets, and things known as "boondoggles"
• Dept. of the Treasury - 8 balanced budgets since 1950
• Dept. of Veterans Affairs - why isn't this included in the defense department?
• Corps of Engineers - ?
• Other Defense Civil Programs - "other," I assume
• Environmental Protection Agency - rules to save newts
• Executive Office of the President - I would post a picture of the first "lady" on vacation, but I wouldn't want to look at it myself
• General Services Administration - I didn't know that we had an official government help desk!
• International Assistance Programs -are these the guys who funded Osama bin Laden during the Iran/Iraq war?
• NASA - cancelled space programs and WD-40
• National Science Program - Science!
• Office of Personnel Management - what?
• Small Business Administration - forms for small businesses to fill out, plus more forms, and more forms, and more forms, and laws, and forms, and did I mention forms?
• Social Security Administration - misinformation on whether or not there is a special SS account or whether its revenues are just added to the rest of the budget
• Other Independent Agencies - um..."other"?
• Allowances - Hey, I found the official government waste everyone agrees to want to cut!  Why is it still here?

Just a Question

Japan has a surplus of so called "herbivores."  Japan hasn't had a military force of size for several decades.  Coincidence?

Keynesian Economics Didn't Work in Japan

Douglas French wrote about the economic history of Japan over the last two decades.  It started with a real estate bubble bursting and has continued with bailouts, stimulus, quantitative easing, zero percent interest rates, tax rate cuts, and no spending cuts. 

Does any of that sound familiar? 

Do you suppose that the results are any good?

When that doozy of a bubble popped, the supposedly halfhearted BOJ transformed the world’s healthiest OECD country in 1990 into a country with a public debt of 240% of GDP. Bill Bonner quips, “The Japanese tried to cure an alcoholic with heroin. Now they’re addicted to it.”

Japan’s monetary policy aggressively lowered rates to 0.5% between 1991-1995 and has operated a zero interest rate policy virtually ever since.

The Japanese government didn’t just leave matters to the monetary authorities. Between 1992-1995, it tried six stimulus plans totaling 65.5 trillion yen and even cut tax rates in 1994. It tried cutting taxes again in 1998, but government spending was never cut.

In 1998, another stimulus package of 16.7 trillion yen was rolled out, nearly half of which was for public works projects. Later in the same year, another stimulus package was announced, totaling 23.9 trillion yen. The very next year, an 18 trillion yen stimulus was tried, and in October 2000, another stimulus of 11 trillion yen was announced.
During the 1990s, Japan tried 10 fiscal stimulus packages totaling more than 100 trillion yen, and each failed to cure the recession.

In spring 2001, the BOJ switched to a policy of quantitative easing — targeting the growth of the money supply, instead of nominal interest rates — in order to engineer a rebound in demand growth.

The BOJ’s quantitative easing and large increase in liquidity stopped the fall in land prices by 2003. Japan’s central bank held interest rates at zero until early 2007, when it boosted its discount rate back to 0.5% in two steps by midyear. But the BOJ quickly reverted back to its zero interest rate policy.

In August 2008, the Japanese government unveiled an 11.5 trillion yen stimulus. The package, which included 1.8 trillion yen in new spending and nearly 10 trillion yen in government loans and credit guarantees, was in response to news that the Japanese economy the previous month suffered its biggest contraction in seven years and inflation had topped 2% for the first time in a decade.

In December 2009, Reuters reported, “The Bank of Japan reinforced its commitment to maintain very low interest rates on Friday and set the scene for a further easing of monetary policy to fight deflation. The bank said that it would not tolerate zero inflation or falling prices.”

In a paper for the International Monetary Fund entitled Bank of Japan’s Monetary Easing Measures: Are They Powerful and Comprehensive?, W. Raphael Lam wrote that the BOJ had “expanded its tool kit through a series of monetary easing measures since early 2009.” The BOJ instituted new asset purchase programs allowing the central bank to purchase corporate bonds, commercial paper, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and real estate investment trusts (REITs).

According to Lam’s work, the BOJ bought 134.8 trillion yen worth of government and corporate paper between December 2008 and August 2011. Lam described the impact of these purchases as “broad-based and comprehensive,” but it failed to impact “inflation expectations.”

For more than two decades, the Japanese central bank and government have emptied the Keynesian tool chest looking for anything that would slay the deflation dragon. Reading the hysterics of the financial press and Japanese central bankers, one would think prices are plunging. Or that borrowers cannot repay loans and the economy is not just at a standstill, but in a tailspin. Tokyo must be one big soup line.

Why would doing all of those things here give us better results than the Japanese got?

Do you want to know what the American economy will look like in the next few years?  Have a look at Japan's new normal.

Designing A Government

I realize that our current government is very likely past the point of saving.  (Bring on the bankruptcy! And sooner rather than later.)  But if we were going to design a federal government for this country, what should it look like?

I think Ayn Rand was right in stating that the three tasks of government should be protecting citizens from outsiders, protecting citizens from each other, and having a judical system to resolve disputes.

That means the government should have police, armed forces, and a court system.

It seems to me that the original purpose of the United States was to have a collection of states that did their own thing, but had free trade with each other, and supported each other in times of war.  This is opposed to what we have now with the central government dictating many rules and regulations that everyone must follow, or else.  Instead of having 50 experiments we have only one.  In many areas states are not allowed to try to improve things. 

This is one thing that annoys me about the left.  Some will complain that it is not "fair" to take risks in being different in each state, without realizing that federal laws are just as much of a risky experiment, even if it is only one at a time.

Anyway, I would argue that of the three functions of government the federal government need only to deal with the armed forced and court system.  Who better to attempt to protect people from each other than the governments that are nearby?

What are some other things that a federal government should do?

A legislative branch?  I can see the need to have representatives from each state coming together in order to decided war must be declared against some other country.  But what else would they be needed to do?  If a state is attacked then couldn't a president declare war?  Perhaps with a majority of votes from the states governors?  Maybe we should skip the legislature and give their one(?) duty to the states' governors.

Boarder security?  International boarders coincide with state boarders too.  Why not let boarder states take care of their security they way that they want?  This may not be "fair" to leave this problem to individual states, who will incur increased expenses.  But why not ask the citizens of Arizona what they think of the federal government's "help" on the issue?  If I were a boarder state, I'd rather need to pay more but do things they way I want, then pay less and have to ask someone else to do things in a way that I don't want.

Why do we have residency requirements for states and for the country?  Why not say that a resident of any state is a resident of the country? Is the redundancy nessesary?

Foreign relations?   We have embassies in most of the world's countries, and vice versa.  What do they do?  I can understand helping travelers return home.  But is that worth the cost of paying someone, and his family, and chefs, and housekeepers, and security, and chauffeurs, and a house, etc. to stay in a foreign country?  Should a country even be responsible for citizens who choose to leave the country?

 What does the federal government do, foreign relation wise, that the states cannot do themselves?

I wonder about all of the embassies in Washington D.C.  What do all the ambassadors do all day?  (Besides accumulate parking tickets?)  The ratio of ambassadors to the Secretary of State and deputy Secretary of State has got to be around 170 to 2.  Does each Secretary of State even meet with each country's ambassador, even once every term?

Being an ambassador does sound like a fun job to have.  It sounds like you get paid to live in a foreign country at no expense to you.

Can any of you commenters think of something that the federal government should do that each state cannot?

This would leave us with a much smaller government, which would require much less in taxes.  This could be good for those of you liberals, because it should be much easier to get all of the politicians in your state to agree on how to spend things, than it is to convince the politicians from all around the country to agree with you.  Lower taxes and fewer jobs being done by the federal government would give you much more freedom to increase your local taxes and you'd have an argument to expand your government in your own state.

I hear that many in some states, like New York, pay more than 50% of their income in combined taxes to their state and the federal government.  Even you liberals should agree that only so much can be realistically taxes from someone.  Wouldn't you rather have more of those tax dollars go to your more local government, where your individual voice can make more of a difference in directing where those tax dollars go?

An example for those of you liberals who disagree with my thinking in this post:

Which is more likely:

1) Gay marriage becoming legalized in some states (as has happened already)
2) Convincing a majority of politicians from around the country to vote for gay marriage

Submitted Without Comment

from the Whited Sepulchre:

A book of philosophy predicted the fracking boom...70 years ago

What if I told you that around 70 years ago a book of philosophy was published that predicted the oil fracking boom in North Dakota?

What if I told you that that book would describe the state where the fracking (acquiring oil from shale) occurred would make the state with the lowest unemployment rate in the country and make it become a major economic power in the country?

What if I told you that around 70 years ago a book of philosophy was published that predicted that the countries of Europe would go bankrupt?

What if I told you that around 70 years ago a book of philosophy was published that predicted the collapse of a major bridge across the Mississippi river?

What if I told you that around 70 years ago a book of philosophy was published that predicted that the government would be in the business of making rules for big businesses in order to prevent new businesses from succeeding?

What if I told you that around 70 years ago a book of philosophy was published that predicted massive unemployment?

What if I told you that around 70 years ago a book of philosophy was published that predicted the breakup of some large companies because they are "monopolies," when really those companies didn't spend enough on supporting politicians?

What if I told you that around 70 years ago a book of philosophy was published that predicted the crumbling of our culture and society?

What if I listed a dozen other predictions made by this book warning of the dangers of big government and their occurrence today?

Would it be worth a read?

You could argue that you could find plenty of parallels between real life and any book of fiction.  That is true.  But if the author witnessed most of those things in one country, moved to avoid it, and then warned of the dangers of big government in a philosophical book of fiction, then wouldn't that be worth a read?

I have one last question for you:

Who is John Galt?

John Galt Day, March 2013

 Many of you claim to support "going Galt," so put your actions where your word are:

 John Galt Day! Why Not?

by Brian Wilson

In a Friday the 13^th speech to supporters in Roanoke, Va., Pres. Obama said, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help…. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Headlines screamed:

"Business Owners Furious at Obama Insult"
"Obama’s "You Didn’t Build That" Enrages Business Community"
"Slap In The Face To Hard-Working Americans"

Mostly it’s been the Conservative pundits, columnists, talk show hosts appropriately incensed, burning up bandwidth and air waves with passionate push-back. "This from a guy who has never run a business!" "This man has lived off tax-payer money his whole life!" "How many businesses has Obama run?" "This man was raised by Marxists and Communists. This proves he hates Capitalism and American Exceptionalism!" 

So far, so good. But living in our 24 Hour Non-Stop News Cycle World, by the time you’re reading this the story could already be ancient history: "Oh! This happened LAST Friday?!"

It doesn’t have to be that way. What if on August 13^th,, the "anniversary" of "You Didn’t Do That" Day, business owners of America showed the statists just who John Galt is and declared "John Galt Day", close their business for the day, keep the kids home from school? Starve the Beast of its taxes; the ultimate government groin kick. 

Next day, announce that come September, it will be TWO days. Use FaceBook, Twitter, talk radio, blogs to spread the word, invite others to join. You don’t have to be a major chain or Big Box store to send a crystal clear message. Imagine independent truckers pulling over, shutting down for the day. Mom & Pop stores of all sorts and types lock up andtake the family on a picnic. Notify the MSM: Welcome to the John Galt Day Flash Dance! 

It doesn’t have to be All In, All At Once (and probably wouldn’t). It would more likely start like one of those cool flash mob dances all over the Internet. Watch! I dare you not to smile! And as Milton Friedman once told Walter Williams: Whenever you talk about Freedom, smile!

Sure, the Big Boys will probably take a pass. Best Buy, Bass Pro, Macy’s, Old Navy, Target, Wally World – they’ll be all "biz-as-usual". So what? Every individual can declare his/her own personal John Galt Day. Isn’t everyone basically "in business" for themselves? Aren’t you? Isn’t "the individual the smallest minority"? (Ayn Rand). So, as a "minority business owner, I’m closed in honor of John Galt Day!" 

Think about it:

*"Gone Galt" signs hanging in business windows everywhere!

*Voice Mail message: "Hello, you’ve reached Exceptional Services. We are closed in honor of John Galt Day. We’ll be back tomorrow. Thanks for your business. For more information, read Atlas Shrugged."

Simple. No massive organizing. No herding cats. No moving parts. Literally: a spontaneously combusted Just Do It. A current event silver bullet at Big Government. A gold nugget of Freedom for everyone to see. Or, if you prefer, a bitch-slap response to a Presidential insult.

Call your neighbors! Text your friends! Ask your favorite business places to take the day. Get the local Chamber of Commerce behind it! Show your appreciation giving them your business!
John Galt Day. August 13, 2012. 

Just do it – for Freedom! (And it will feel really, really good!)

Venezela

Hugo Chavez bough the farm. 

I've always thought, for whatever reason, that I might prefer Venezuela over Columbia and Brazil.  I wouldn't want to visit until the political arrangement is sorted out, but I'm more inclined to go there now that he's gone.

I recommend that the government do nothing.

Clearly the U.S. budget is not balanced. 

Clearly it cannot be balanced unless significant changes are made to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and unemployment benefits.   Because spending on these programs, alone exceed the total revenues of the U.S. government.  tables 1.1 and 3.1

Clearly there is no plan to make any changes to entitlements.

Since these are the facts, what should our government do to improve our economy?

I suggest that it do nothing.  It is true that an unbalanced budget is bad.  Adding more than $1 trillion to the national debt each year is bad.  But our government is so incompetent that even their attempts to fix these massive problems only make things worse.

Our government is thoroughly incompetent at everything. (see: literacy rate in publicly schooled cities like Detroit and Milwaukee, see: the war on drugs, see: border security....)

Incompetently changing the laws every so often can only complicate things.  Adding new rules and regulations can only complicate things.

I suggest holding all laws exactly as they are now through at least the next four years.  It is more difficult to make plans when we don't know what the laws will be.  Businesses will be better able to plan the next four years if they know that there will be no new laws and regulations that they need to comply with.  Entrepreneurs will be better able to make plans if they know what the laws are going to be. 

We'd all have four years to make the most with our known quantities and we'd not need to spend time trying to figure out what all the new rules will be.

Stability in the awful economy may be the best way for people to work to improve the economy.

Its not a good solution.  A balanced budget should be the first priority of every government, business, and person all the time always.  But since their is no prayer at all for any sort of good solution, let's stick with the terribleness that we know, rather than add more to what we don't.

A Better Poverty Documentary

I recently attempted to watch several documentaries about poverty.  Why is it that all poverty documentaries seem to only be interviews with poor people and about how bad it is to be poor and also capitalism sucks? 

It is unpleasant being poor, it seems.

One of the documentaries that I attempted to watch made the claim that poverty is the result of colonialism. 

News for you documentary makers: many people were poor before colonialism.

Are there any documentaries on poverty that actually relay new and/ or interesting poverty related information?

I've got an idea for a poverty documentary/ experiment.

Find three comparable poor cities somewhere.  Leave one city alone for the control.  Make free market changes to one city.  Make progressive changes to the third city.  Then the documentary could follow the progress and track the results to see what improves the lives of the poor the most.

City A for the control city.

City B as the free market city could have a "sweatshop" open up  where some citizens could choose to work there for wages.

City C could add minimum wages, require that all employers pay for employee's healthcare, add environmental laws to prevent the use of some of the land, there could be increases in the number of taxes and increases in the tax rates, there could be forms that need to be filled out before any actual action takes place, then there could be lots more forms that need to be filled out, then the city could have a year long delay as the forms are discussed by the geniuses in government, then we could find out that the wrong forms were filled out and new forms need to be filled out, then a rare fungus might be discovered that prevents the operation from going into effect, then the tax rates could be raised again and the whole production could begin again.  And then taxes could be raised again.

We should find a real progressive to think up the ideas for City C, in case he does not like my suggestions.

Wouldn't that be a more interesting documentary on poverty than the ones that we have currently which are nothing but interviews with poor people lamenting how bad it is to be poor?

And it would end with actual results!  We could see whether or not minimum wages, for example, improve the lives of the poor!

I'd be willing to work on this documentary.  Would anyone care to fund it? Or know a good cameraman?  Or writer? Or...

(Side note: which progressive proposals would actually make any sense if we want to grow the economy?  Raising taxes?)

It isn't Left vs Right

While looking at the politics of the Nazis for yesterday's post I discovered that left vs right isn't the best way to describe the political arrangement of contemporary America.

Using the words left and right to describe political persuasions was originally done after the French Revolution.

The Historical origin of the terms (left and right wing politics):

The terms Right and Left refer to political affiliations which originated early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics^{[citation needed]}.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism, secularism, and civil liberties.^[3]

Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class (with notable exceptions such as the proto-communist Gracchus Babeuf). Support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were expressed by politicians sitting on the left, because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy; but outside of parliamentary politics, these views are often characterized as being on the Right.
The reason for this apparent contradiction lies in the fact that those 'to the left' of the parliamentary left, outside of official parliamentary structures (such as the sans-culottes of the French Revolution), typically represent much of the working class, poor peasantry, and the unemployed. Their political interests in the French Revolution lay with opposition to the aristocracy, and so they found themselves allied with the early capitalists. However, this did not mean that their economic interests lay with the 'laissez-faire' policies of those representing them politically.

As capitalist economies developed, the aristocracy became less relevant and were mostly replaced by capitalist representatives. The size of the working class increased as capitalism expanded, and began to find expression partly through trade unionist, socialist, anarchist, and communist politics, rather than being confined to the capitalist policies expressed by the original 'left'. This evolution has often pulled parliamentary politicians away from laissez-faire economic policies, although this has happened to different degrees in different countries.

Thus, the word 'left' in American political parlance may refer to 'liberalism' and be identified with the Democratic Party, whereas in a country such as France these positions would be regarded as relatively more right-wing, and 'left' is more likely to refer to 'socialist' positions rather than 'liberal' ones.

The words used to describe politics are important because without a common language and common meanings for terms we spend time merely deciding the language that we will converse in.  I expect that in past times there may have been political debates about which speaking language treaties would have been conversed in.  If France and Prussia were going to negotiate, then the Prussians would have lost face if the common language used was French.

Today we spend lots of time politically defining our words.  Those on the "left" and those on the "right" cannot, for example agree if President Obama has overseen spending cuts, or if he has been willing to negotiate with congressional republicans.  We keep hearing a debate about what the words mean and what the facts are; its no wonder that so little time seems to be spent solving the actual issues.

When the left and right were first used to describe political orientation the right meant monarchists and the left meant the new ideas of capitalism and meritocracy.  No one would suggest that modern republicans want to return America into a monarchy.  The right and left terms don't mean what they did.

How many times have you heard that historical politician X would not recognize his political party today?  This is always quite likely because the politics of any era are different from the politics of any other era.

The political issues of today cannot be as easily compared to the issues of the past as they are in contemporary debate.

Words like progressive, liberal, conservative, and libertarian are better words that right and left to describe the political beliefs of people are.

For future reference:

Incorrect: The American left does not understand history or basic economics.

Correct: Liberals Progressives do not understand history or basic economics.

Were Nazis from the Left or Right?

(Note to readers: there are some issues with the formatting in this post.  The font changes size and weather or not it is superscript.  I have removed some of the many problems by looking through the html code.  I don't want to continue to look to fix the rest of the problems; if I wanted to be a computer programmer, then I would be.  My apologies if the poor formatting makes the text harder to read than it should be.  My suggestion for prospective bloggers here.)

Many people who talk to people on the left get compared to Nazis and to Hitler.  They are told repeatedly that Nazis and fascists are far-right ideologies.

In an attempt to read about Nazis I read much of the Wikipedia page on Nazism.  I wanted to see if the actual policies of the Nazis would compare more to the left or right.  One point I found was that Nazism is called "far-right" repeatedly throughout the page.

A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.^[22]

There isn't really a listing of specific policies, the page more describes the sorts of things favored, and opposed, by Nazis.

An interesting paragraph that describes the ideology's politics:

The German Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler had objected to the party's previous leader's decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name, as Hitler at the time preferred to use "Social Revolutionary".^[15] Upon taking over the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined socialism as being based upon a commitment of an individual to a community.^[15] Hitler did not want the ideology's socialism to be conflated with Marxian socialism. He claimed that true socialism does not repudiate private property unlike the claims of Marxism, and stated that the "Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning" and "Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism."^[16] Nazism denounced both capitalism and communism for being associated with Jewish materialism.^[17] Nazism favoured private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of a national solidarity that would transcend class differences.^[18][19] Like other fascist movements, Nazism supported the outlawing of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers, because these were regarded as a threat to national unity.^[20] Instead, the state controlled and approved wage and salary levels.^[20]

There are sections of the page describing the Nazis' dislike of communists and sections on their dislike of capitalists.

Part of the "anti-communist" section:

In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."^[146] In 1942, Hitler privately said: "I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative".^[147]

^{Part of the "anti-capitalist" section:} 

Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed disdain for capitalism, arguing that it holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.^[150] He opposed free market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.^[136]

Hitler distrusted capitalism for being unreliable due to its egotism, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk.^[150] Hitler said in 1927, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."^[151]

One interesting thing I discovered was calling Heinrich Himmler "conservative" and later saying that he opposed too much conservatism and capitalism.

Quote one:

Other prominent conservative Nazis included Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich.^[34]

Quote two:

Other Nazis — especially more radical ones such as Gregor Strasser, Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler — rejected Italian Fascism, accusing it of being too conservative or capitalist.^[93]

So, were Nazis far -right or far-left?

The authors ^{of this Wikepedia page} want to claim that the Nazis drew their ideology from both sides.  Hitler claimed that he got his ideology from both sides and that both sides are wrong.

Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.^[23][24] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying:

Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.^[25]

Note that Hitler did not like the right because they were too nice to the Jews.

Hitler thought that Nazism was from the left and the right, moderate?  Maybe we should conclude that it is the moderates in America that have ideologies most similar to the Nazis.

My conclusion is that despite repeated claims of Nazis being far right, that wasn't really the case.  Here's a quote that is a fine example for showing that while Hitler favored private ownership of things, he wanted to control what the people did with the things that they privately owned.

Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".^[136] Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it.^[137] Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.^[138] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished; nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to entirely disregard business competition and private property as economic engines.^[139][140]

To tie farmers to their land, selling agricultural land was prohibited.^[141] Farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed.^{[citation needed]} That was achieved by granting business monopoly rights to marketing boards, to control production and prices with a quota system.^[142]

If Nazis were "far-right" because they supported private ownership and then controlled what was done with the privately owned things, then who needs socialism?

"Liberals" Are An Enemy

A few days ago Tuthmosis posted "Liberals" Are Not The Enemy at Return of Kings.

Before I explain why he is wrong I'd like to say that it is good to hear from the other side.  It is good to see that someone is willing to write things that many of his readers are likely to disagree with.  Its good that ROK is not an echo chamber.  And I support his writing something that I disagree with.  Any insults in the comments to that post show that he made his point well enough that those who insulted him had nothing productive to say.

That being said, Tuthmosis is totally wrong in his argument.

(Note that two videos were included in his post and not copied here.)
((Because I use other quotes, Tuthmosis' remarks are indented and italicized.))

It’s difficult to deny that there’s a strong conservative leaning to the manosphere. This ranges from anti-state, laissez-faire, libertarian types on the one hand, to a much uglier streak of ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist sentiment on the other. For our purposes today, we’ll concern ourselves with the former category—and its immediate ideological neighbors. Whatever the case, I can’t count the number of times I’ve read “liberal,” “left,” or “progressive” as a pejorative in a manosphere article, tweet, or forum post.

Firstly I think that " the right" as it exists currently in America consists of social conservatives, economic conservatives, and some libertarians.  If someone on the right is called one of those three names, or conservative, or a righty, then he will likely not complain.

The same is not true for those on the "left."  And do note that he put the lefty names in quotes, but not "libertarian."  People on the political left have wanted to have themselves called all sorts of names: liberals, progressives, lefties, socialists, communists, labor, etc.

I'm told that "liberal" was once the favored term for the American left.  But now many prefer "progressive."  What, exactly, is the difference?

Apparently some progressives don't want to be called liberals, or lefties, or socialists, or communists.  And communists don't want to be called liberals...

Would someone on the left (is that a pejorative too?) explain the difference between them?

If those of us on the right only called the lot of you "progressives" would that be okay?  Do you prefer another term?  Once you pick your preferred term, would you mind not changing it every so often?

He has divided the right into "anti-state, laissez-faire, libertarian types" and "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist".

If this article was meant to promote understanding, reasonableness and avoiding pejoratives, then why the name calling?

Are there "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalists"?  There could be.  I'm not aware of having ever met one, but let's assume that they are there.  Is that meant to describe people who go to church and oppose gay marriage and abortion?

Not all people who go to church are ignorant of history and science, you know.

As for white nationalists... I don't think that I'm allowed to have an opinion on race; I'm a white male.

The two issues that seem to make up the social debate are abortion and gay marriage.  I've tried to rationalise abortion.  I've thought about it and tried to consider it from all angles.  But I cannot find a way to argue that abortion is something other than murdering the most innocent people (or future people).  Does that make me an ""ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist"?

Gays are able to live together and do what they want, and almost no one is going to bother them.  I'm not sure I understand what it is that the gays want in this matter.  From what I understand they want to get married and flaunt it in the faces of those who think that it is sinful.

The rightward lean is thoroughly unsurprising, since much of society’s ills have successfully been pinned on the specter of the so-called liberal (monolithic) left. The capital-L “Left,” the myth goes, is responsible for feminism, for an activist state that unfairly levels the playing field between men and women by force, and who enables and apologizes for a panoply of negative behaviors from women (and indeed men), from obesity to single motherhood to sexual promiscuity. The left shelters the characters we all hold in contempt: weak, white-knighting manginas and bitchy, short-haired feminists.

"The rightward lean is thoroughly unsurprising, since much of society’s ills have successfully been pinned on the specter of the so-called liberal (monolithic) left."

Should we pity your side for this?  Many on the right would claim the opposite is true as well.

For example: every time that there is some bad market news it is blamed on the free market.  And America has no free market.  For starters, the U.S. Code is more than 300,000 pages of laws affecting every issue in our lives.  And we have a Federal Reserve Bank.  The Fed controls the money supply and interest rates.  The government is setting the rules and the scoring system (money) and yet the free market gets blamed for bad economic news.

"The capital-L “Left,”"

I do hope someone on the left takes up my request ant tells me what it is that those of you on the left want to be called.  Please don't change it too often once you decide.

"The capital-L “Left,” the myth goes, is responsible for feminism,"

It is difficult to prove that the left is responsible for feminism because I don't know what it is "the left" was when feminism is founded.  Because the left has not nailed down a specific term for themselves and a definition is is difficult to understand what it is that someone on the left would accept as being on the left. (This is why, I suspect, the left does not use one term for itself and why we won't see one term used to describe them all being acceptable to them.  For the record, those of us "on the right" are cool with being called "on the right.")

In an attempt to show that feminism does indeed come from the left, I would ask: who do modern American feminists generally vote for: democrats (the left party) or republicans (the right party)?

From the National Organization for Women's Economic Justice page:

NOW advocates for wide range of economic justice issues affecting women, from the glass ceiling to the sticky floor of poverty. These include welfare reform, livable wages, job discrimination, pay equity, housing, social security and pension reform, and much more.

Does anyone on the left want to claim that the economic position for noted feminist organization NOW is anything other than lefty?

"for an activist state"

I cannot conceive of how the left could be described as anything other than advocating an activist state.  Must I define each word?

from the 2013 State of the Union:

Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.  (Applause.) We should be able to get that done.  (Applause.)

Would someone on the left explain how advocating that the government actively interfere with employment wages is something other than activism?

" that unfairly levels the playing field between men and women by force,"

Is it the left or right that supports Title IX?

I am really trying to be reasonable with this rebuttal.   But I cannot express in words how inconceivable I find it that someone could claim that it is not the left that is responsible for feminism and leveling the gender playing field by force.

Not only do those on the left not want a single term and definition to define them, they are not willing to admit to the things that their side does.

After Tuthmosis' opening paragraph I attempted to rationalize some beliefs from some of those on the right.  I accept that some on the right want to forcefully oppose gay marriage.  Tuthmosis is unwilling to even admit to what the left has supported and is supporting.  I attempted to rationalize my sides' faults away.  He is unwilling to accept the ownership of his sides faults.

It could be because one side is creative and one side is logical.  We may not think the same ways about things.  It seems that the left and right are speaking different languages.

As clearly as I can: the left and feminists support each other.  See: feminist orgainsations' political support for lefty candidates.

The left is responsible for leveling the gender playing field by force.  See: the lefts' support for Title IX.

"and who enables and apologizes for a panoply of negative behaviors from women (and indeed men), from obesity to single motherhood to sexual promiscuity. The left shelters the characters we all hold in contempt: weak, white-knighting manginas and bitchy, short-haired feminists."

Who gets the votes from short haired feminists: the righty presidential candidates (such as: W and ?) or lefty presidential candidates (such as Clinton and Obama)?

Truth be told, this isn’t entirely inaccurate. Many of the supporters of those very things describe themselves as liberals or progressives. Historically speaking, feminism originated—and was advanced—by members of the political left. Today’s self-branded progressives and liberals support candidates of the ostensibly liberal faction, the Democratic Party. Despite all that, problems arise when you start to unpack that over-simplified characterization.

Note that what I have written previously is an oversimplification.

Note also that he continues to avoid being willing to accept that feminism comes from the left.

Note that perhaps the most progressive U.S. president ever was a vocal supporter of woman's suffrage as it became law.

Wikipedia:

"President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the bill."

There are entire segments of the left that don’t support any of those movements or fit those descriptions. The left is a diverse lot—one that’s become as ideologically fragmented as the right has in recent decades. Subscribing to a feminist, permissive, or castrated brand of politics isn’t an admission requirement to the left any more than subscribing to Evangelical Christianity is one to the right. One problem is that the distinctions between socially left-leaning, fiscally left-leaning, and other three-dimensional configurations have been blurred and flattened into a dismissive cocktail of talking points.

"There are entire segments of the left that don’t support any of those movements or fit those descriptions."

Fair enough.  Some on the right oppose being legally forced to fill abortion prescriptions despite their moral opposition.  But they are just "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalists", and they totally belong to the right.  Whereas the unfortunate parts of the left are not really a part of the left.

"Subscribing to a feminist, permissive, or castrated brand of politics isn’t an admission requirement to the left any more than subscribing to Evangelical Christianity is one to the right."

Even if everyone on the left does not support feminism, it is a part of the left.  Even though not everyone on the right supports a Christianity, church goers are a part of the right.

Even though I personally disagree with a lot of what Rick Santorum thinks, I accept that he is part of the right.

In the same manner, those of you on the left should accept feminists as being part of the left, even if you are a lefty who disagrees with feminism.

"One problem is that the distinctions between socially left-leaning, fiscally left-leaning, and other three-dimensional configurations have been blurred and flattened into a dismissive cocktail of talking points."

This is true for both sides.  Accept that flawed persons on your side are on your side.

Feminists are progressives.

What’s more, many of the people conventionally lumped into the left aren’t very “left” at all. Take Barack Obama—the favorite scape goat of the conservative right. His politics, like those of the Democratic Party writ-large, are anywhere from center to center-right, by almost any historical or global measure. The notions of “right” and “left” have, quite simply, steadily drifted right in the United States over the past decades. Dwight Eisenhower, the famous example goes, couldn’t even get nominated in the Democratic Party today, never mind his own party.

I don't care about what the global measure is.

Barack Obama has overseen the partial nationalization of our healthcare system and the nationalization of GM.

We really do seem to be talking different languages.

George W Bush is a member of the right.  Despite his overspending and over-enthusiasm in federal interference in our education system he is is of the right.

Barack Obama is a member of the left.  Despite Guantanamo Bay still being open, despite U.S. troops still being abroad, he is of the left.

I truly cannot conceive of how someone can claim that Obama is not a lefty.  I begin to wonder if the whole post was a joke and if I am being too serious.  Lots of writers sem to try this kind of joke, and I never catch it.

It is true that past republicans had political positions that are not the same as the republican party's positions today.

Short U.S. history lesson:

In the late 1800's both main political parties supported a limited federal government.  My second favorite U.S. president was a democrat: Grover Cleveland.

Currently both political parties are steadfastly in support of keeping the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, at least in some form.  None of these things are right, by any measure.  And yet their continuance is supported by both parties.

The history lesson conclusion: both parties have often been similar and their average point has raged all across the political spectrum.  But more government in the economy is always the left, and less government economically is always the right.

Wikipedia on Cleveland:

His battles for political reform and fiscal conservatism made him an icon for American conservatives of the era.^[1] Cleveland won praise for his honesty, independence, integrity, and commitment to the principles of classical liberalism.^[2] Cleveland relentlessly fought political corruption, patronage, and bossism. Indeed, as a reformer his prestige was so strong that the reform wing of the Republican Party, called "Mugwumps", largely bolted the GOP ticket and swung to his support in 1884.

^{I once heard that Grover Cleveland is Ron Paul's favorite president.}

Another Cleveland quote:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.^[96]

^{Would the democrats nominate him today?  (Off topic: if you want to start a blog, use wordpress.  Changing the size of the font in this line is not worth the 10 minutes it would take for me to do so. I can make it smaller, or much too big, but not the same size as the other text, without re-copy and pasting the quote repeatedly and typing and retyping that line repeatedly.)}

A quote from Grover Cleveland that says that both democrats and republicans opposed a national income tax, at that time:

Both of the great political parties now represented in the Government have by repeated and authoritative declarations condemned the condition of our laws which permit the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue, and have in the most solemn manner promised its correction; and neither as citizens nor partisans are our countrymen in a mood to condone the deliberate violation of these pledges.

He veto'd bills because they weren't, then, the job of the government.

Yet, the average man (and member of manosphere) has, would, and will benefit from wide array of the progressive politics of an activist state. I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.” Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years. The cynical tactic of dismantling federal apparatuses (by de-funding them), allowing them to fail, then pointing the finger at those failures to show how “government is the problem, not the solution,” has successfully convinced a lot of people of the ineptitude of the state. This ignores the idea that the state is only as good as whoever is currently running it.

Lots of problems with this paragraph.  But it is good to see that he admits that, at least,  many regulations that interfere with our lives come from the left.  We are getting closer to a definition of the left.

"I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.”"

Economist Walter Williams would refer to someone who says this as a "bad economist" because only the seen has been observed not the unseen.

What was the unseen cost of making seatbelts mandatory?  We don't know because the answer is unseen.  What advancements in car safety have we missed out on because seatbelt laws have prevented advancements in car safety?  We'll never know.  Car companies were forced to install them and we are forced to wear them.

Note that that is more government interference in our lives and Tuthmosis admits that, at least, this part of more government is of the left.

More government = more left

He puts the invisible hand of the free market in quotes and writes it in such a way as to be dismissive of the idea.

Let's expand on his seatbelt thought.  What he is saying is that without government laws (which come from the left) no car company would bother with car safety.  He is saying that when if cars were all very dangerous, then people would not choose to buy the cars that are safer.

He's saying that the government knows what the best car safety technology is.  And they will require car companies to implement those technologies because those lefty politicians care about safety and the big bad car companies don't care about making its customers happy by making cars that are safe.  (Note: barring government interference, private companies make money by providing customers with things that the customers want to buy.  Customers are not fans of buying things that they don't like.)

What Tuthmosis is saying is that politicians, particularly lefty politicians, know more about car safety, food processing, and water than do the people who make cars, butcher meat, and drill water wells.

What Tuthmosis is saying, in this paragraph, is that lefty politicians know more about the aspects of your life than you do.

What Tuthmosis is saying, in this paragraph, is that lefty politicians, like the one in the following video, should be encouraged to interfere more in the way that you, and everyone else, conducts our lives and does our jobs.

(Do note that Hank Johnson is a democrat, and a lefty, progressive, liberal politician.)

Tuthmosis says that that politician knows more about car safety than does car manufacturers and car buyers.

Tuthmosis says that Rep. Hank knows more about preparing the food you eat than the people who grow it and the people who eat it do.

Tuthmosis says that Rep. Johnson knows more about water clarity than the scientists who test it and the people who drink it.

Tuthmosis says that this liberal, progressive should interfere more with your life, because he knows more about how to run your life than you do.

Watch it again and understand that this is the sort of person who Tuthmosis would like to see make more safety laws that affect your life:

"Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years."

He is blaming our current crisis on deregulation and the free market.

I shall try to explain this slowly:

We, in America, do not have a free market.

We do have a Federal Reserve.

The U.S. Federal Reserve determines how much our money is worth.

The value of money affects every business decision made in our so called "free market."

The Federal Reserve determines the interest rate.

The Fed's interest rate is a number that is the measurement by which all companies compare their own rates of interest. 

Businesses' financial data is written in words whose value were determined by the Fed (money).

Note also that there is not an aspect of your life that does not have a matching federal law.  With "free markets" like this, who needs communism?

"The cynical tactic of dismantling federal apparatuses (by de-funding them), allowing them to fail, then pointing the finger at those failures to show how “government is the problem, not the solution,” has successfully convinced a lot of people of the ineptitude of the state."

Pick anything that the government does that you think that it does well and I will prove otherwise.

The last time someone challenged me on the subject of government competance, she suggested that the government runs our roads.

She seems to think that the 40,000 deaths that occur on U.S. roads each year is an acceptable good number, and an example of how well the government does things.

"This ignores the idea that the state is only as good as whoever is currently running it."

Name something specific that you think that the government does well. 

I don’t like the idea that General Electric pays no income tax and that when I call my credit card a guy in India picks up. I find it increasingly difficult to buy things not made in China. These are, quite plainly, the products of libertarian- and conservative-minded policies in recent decades. Some of these, as we all know, were passed by members of the Democratic Party—like Bill Clinton—who few in the intellectual left would regard as true progressives.

Funny that he should pick General Electric as his example of a bad company.  Guess who is best buds with GE's CEO and appointed him to the position of "President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness"?  You'll never guess. :)

What's wrong with stuff made in China, or Indian customer service reps?  You wouldn't be a racist like those mean righties would you?

People in India and China make stuff and Americans are free to design that stuff.  Who would you rather be: a low skilled laborer, or a product designer?  Guess which country has more of the latter?

I don't like how much W spent and I don't like Romney's political policies but they are, mostly, from the right.

Obama and Clinton are the two most recent lefty presidents; they just are.

Anyway that you look at it, nationalizing GM and our healthcare is lefty politics.  It is now, and is has always been so.

Whether you agree with my politics, or I yours, is immaterial. But, to the degree that, as members of the manosphere, we’re all participating in a form of “politics,” we do need to agree on one thing: a shift away from a wholesale dismissal of the left. If Red Pill Philosophy is the latest version of manospheric thought, and that branch is to mature into a legitimate and intelligent movement—carrying the mantle of a forceful and articulate response to feminism into mainstream credibility—it will only do so by virtue of operating a big tent.

 All should be invited to take the "red pill," and lefty politics should be understood.  But lefty politics is bad, it is wrong, and we should stop supporting it.

Otherwise, we’ll be easily and quickly dismissed ourselves, as little more than another tin-foil-hat, reactionary movement from the extreme right. We’re doomed to a collapse under the weight of our own intellectual incoherence, exclusiveness, or oversimplified talking points. Earlier ideologies from the manosphere already carry the burden of being branded as inactive complainers or deluded bigots, by none other than men predisposed to sympathize with their general world-view.

 "Otherwise, we’ll be easily and quickly dismissed ourselves, as little more than another tin-foil-hat,"

Translation: We should move our politics to the left because those stupid righties belive in UFOs.

In an unrelated note Dennis Kucinich (D) (another person who Tuthmisis thinks should do more to interfere with your life) has seen a UFO.

At a debate of Democratic presidential candidates in Philadelphia on October 30, 2007, NBC's Tim Russert cited a passage from a book by Shirley MacLaine in which the author writes that Kucinich had seen a UFO from her home in Washington State. Russert asked if MacLaine's assertion was true. Kucinich confirmed and emphasized that he merely meant he had seen an unidentified flying object, just as former US president Jimmy Carter has.^[75] Russert then cited a statistic that 14% of Americans say they have witnessed a UFO.

Who is calling who "bigots"?

Who is dismissing who with terms like tin-foil-hat and "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist"?

The left, in other words, isn’t an enemy of the manosphere. Segments of it are, just like segments of the right are. Like attractive girls who push back against fat acceptance, refuse to wear pajamas in public, scorn effeminate men, and take pride in their own femininity, members of the manospheric left are invaluable allies in a war of complicated allegiances. What’s more, the left offers us a set of intellectual tools to build out our beliefs—on matters such as gender and masculinity—into a coherent ideology. Just like the libertarian impulse offers a powerful set of ideas—self-determination, accountability, and suspicion of institutional might—the left offers us protection from the worst abuses of capital, the perils of an impoverished rabble with nothing to lose, and threats to our fair shot in the marketplace. It’s time to drop the dubious catch-all that liberals-are-to-blame.

The left has long—and to a certain degree fairly—been stereotyped for the worst of its members: concave-chested, bearded, skinny-jeans wearing, bike-riding, vegan-food eating weaksters and their skrillex-cut, tatted-up, female-bodied girlfriends. But the left is much more than that. It’s filled with tough, old-school, manly cats with the balls to stand up to corporate abuse, foreign threats, and, nowadays, the corrosive delusions of feminism.

The more people learn about the "red pill" the better.

But where politics is concerned, liberals are a problem.  The things that are advocated by the left have caused the deaths of more people than any other man-caused calamity ever.

Who are the righty, or "ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist" com parables to the lefty Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong-Un, etc.?

We still exist. And there are more of us than you realize.

I'm glad that someone from the left was willing to write about politics in a way that is different from much of his audience.

Where politics is concerned, we've tried liberalism (as its known in America today) and it has led to death.