When I first started this blog a few years ago http://www.bluecollartrader.blogspot.com/2009_02_03_archive.html ), I was pretty much clueless about the markets and offered that the blog would cover things other than trading, "...It is my hope that as I progress as a trader, the content will improve and perhaps be of interest even to experienced market folks. Until then, you can expect mostly personal reflections of trading, discussion of other blogs, of the economy, politics, and finance rather than stunning technical analysis and savvy trading ideas!"
I have limited my discussion of things other than trading and markets to a handful since then, but I thought I'd touch on politics and economy this morning.
My political affiliation has been registered Republican for about 13 years, but with a soundly-beating Libertarian heart. I consider my views not as Republican, or Conservative, but very much Freedom-Loving. I support Ron Paul, but am not 100% in favor of his foreign policy. In terms of electability, he doesn't have a shot. I don't favor the other three candidates in the Repub field; I truly despise Newt Gingrich and will write in Ron Paul's name on the ballot for president in November if Gingrich gets the nomination. I know, it could lead to Obama being re-elected. I don't care, and it makes me sick to say it because I think the current president is among the handful of most incompetent, devisive presidents in American history. But, he is still a better man than Gingrich. I don't mind Santorum, but he is looking at America through rose colored glasses if he thinks that this election can be won on a "values" platform. He is out of touch with the whole economy issue... approaching the election with a focus on faith and family while we bear the deficit/debt burden is short-sighted in the extreme. I'll hold my nose and vote for Mitt if he gets the nod. I suspect he will. I am from the northeast and I understand the "Northeast Moderate" republican platform. I am not comforted by it. But on the other hand, Mitt has shown competence in the things he has achieved in his business life. He does not carry around personal-life baggage like so many politicains do: Bill Clinton, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Al Gore, etc. I am one who still thinks this type of thing matters. If you're character failings lead you to break your promise to the most important person in your life, your spouse, how can we possibly believe that the same character failings won't affect how you govern complete strangers? Either you are trustworthy or you are not. I will admit trustworthiness is not the be-all and the end-all, however. George W. Bush was a good, trustworthy man in my opinion, but his eight years of middle-east policy have assisted in drowning this country's citizens in red ink. I voted for him both times and will have to carry that heavy burden with me forever. His neo-conservative approach has soured me on that brand of Republican governance.
With all this in mind, I offer this paragraph from a recent article (Feb 1st online) in Forbes written by Richard Salsman. It is a beautiful work of truth, delving into US tax policy and the politics of same.
The whole article can be found by clicking this link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2012/02/01/the-inequality-debate-senseless-without-consideration-of-what-is-earned/
And here is the snippet:
Mr. Obama likewise accepts a false theory of “fairness” that rejects the common-sense, merit-based concept of justice that older Americans might recognize as “desert,” where justice means we deserve (or earn) what we get in life, if by our free choice. Legitimately, there is “distributive justice,” with rewards for good or productive behavior, and “retributive justice,” with punishments for evil or destructive behavior. Yet for many decades now, instead of this valid principle of “justice as desert,” most political theorists, politicians, and policymakers have adopted and enacted, explicitly or implicitly, the invalid notion of “justice as fairness,” a scheme presented in the famed 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, one-time Harvard professor. For Rawls and his acolytes in academia and Washington, “fairness” means not equality before the law but instead equality of opportunity and equality of result. Rawls asserts, as a “moral intuition” (his feelings), that wealth or income gaps can be justified only if they benefit society’s “least advantaged” persons. This is “social justice,” not true justice, and at root it denies that anybody earns anything. At the same time, it insists that needy have-nots somehow “deserve” mandated handouts from those who’ve achieved and have things, that taxpayers are right-less and duty-bound to surrender liberty and wealth whenever a need is claimed.
It should be clear to all who read this that I support kindness and charity with all my being. I believe that our value as human beings can be judged by our willingness to share what we have with those around us. I personally give my time and a portion of our limited amount of money to helping others. What I rail against is government sponsored assistance. Charitable giving is kindness. Redistributive tax policy is confiscation under threat of punishment. One is sourced in the best of human behavior and the other is rooted in darkness of the actions. Like my hard-core New Deal Roosevelt Democrat mother always told me: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." A societal structure that confiscates wealth from one and hands to another without merit is a perfect example of her wise words.
