Fiat currency, the gold standard, central banks, currency trading.

Although I have tried to educate myself on the subjects noted in the title, it is confusing beyond reason (footnote). One must wonder if anyone but a select few really understand these issues.

As my readers know I am a Republican. It was a Republican president (Richard Nixon in 1971 – not my favorite president) who took the USA off the gold standard. However, he did so on the advice of my all-time favorite economist, Milton Friedman.

The problem, as I see it, with floating currencies is that they are the measuring device of economies and yet they are, in part, measuring themselves. The measuring device should not be part of the what is being measured (40 years of scientific research has taught me that).

There are precise standards of measurement for:

  • one second
  • one inch
  • one square foot
  • one ounce
  • etc., etc.

Imagine if one second varied from day to day. Could one confidently measure time? Imagine you are baking a cake and measuring cups varied from day to day. And then imagine you were told to toss the measuring cup into the batter. In essence that is what floating currencies of fiat money do every day to the valuations of EVERYTHING!

So I did a little research on currency trading (after reading The Scandal of Money, by George Gilder). The numbers are astronomical and shocking. (Of course, many economists believe the size of the trading volume is actually very good).

Let’s take a look (source of data – for those who do not know, Forex is the foreign currency exchange):

  • $5.3 trillion dollars are traded every day in the forex market. That is more than one fourth of the US annual GDP traded EVERY DAY.
  • Gross world product in 2018 is projected at $87.51 trillion. Forex annual trading volumes are measured in quadrillions of dollars (1000 trillion per quadrillion).
  • Forex trading daily volume is about 53 times more than the New York stock exchange.
  • The forex market is 12x larger than the futures market and 27x larger than the equities (stock) market.
  • The US Dollar is the most traded currency, being part of almost 90% of global trades.
  • Central Banks essentially create the various currencies and banks are far and away the largest traders in currency – ten banks do 77% of all this trading. (The bank computers to “guide” these trades are probably the largest single investment in computer hardware ever made.)

Importantly, these huge exchanges of money produce absolutely nothing.

Think about it.

Roy Filly

Footnote:

https://theruggedindividualist.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/the-“fiat-money-system-”/

https://theruggedindividualist.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-coming-or-is-it-the-current-currency-war-race-to-the-bottom/

https://theruggedindividualist.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/im-a-little-hyper-about-hyperinflation/

https://theruggedindividualist.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/the-fed/

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

You can learn a lot from graphs.

There are still more than enough to destroy most or all of the planet, but living through the Cold War (late sixties until 1991) was interesting.

Does anyone with a brain doubt that this was “Pay to Play?” If you are a doubter, explain the graph below.

The venerable “tube” appears to be on its way out!

Aren’t those the countries the left tells us are so “egalitarian?”

Only fools do not believe that demographics are destiny! Read it and weep. By the by, 2.1 is the replacement fertility rate. Fertility rates of 1.5 or less spell disaster.

Poor journalism (bar 1) may be more prevalent than “fake news,” but their data (bar 5) still confirms there is a lot of “fake news.” (Personally I would take the second bar and the 5th bar and combine them as “fake news,” thus making “fake news” the winner by a landslide.)

Don’t you wish you had plunked down $180 on the Amazon IPO!

Wow! Do I love President Trump or what?!?! So Vice President Mike Pence misspoke when he stated that President Trump had eradicated 22 regulations for every new regulation. It was only 15 to 1.

Again, I thank President Trump.

Let’s see, who was president in 2017-2018?

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Politics in cartoon form.

Pelosi as Speaker of the House will undoubtedly have many painful moments, but also some hilarious ones, as well! She is probably our best resource to win back the House in 2020.

Not a fan of General Motors. Not a fan of the United Auto Workers. Ergo, it’s hard for me to get too embroiled in this fiasco.

Nancy will be after your money. So if you voted for the Democrat running for the House… well, you deserve your fate.

I have a great deal of respect for Chief Justice John Roberts (excluding the Obamacare faux pas). But his recent statement was ludicrous.

 

They never learn.

The left wing media has no shame.

It is so blatant it is almost laughable.

 

 

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Crossing an international border. The wildly disparate “ire” of the left.

I am pretty sure I wouldn’t want to live in Honduras. On the other hand, I am pretty sure I no longer want to live in California.

The “migrant” crisis has been a major focus of the lame-stream media and certainly they have been quite irate about President Trump’s policy. I just read an article by Humberto Fantova. It was quite illuminating (and poignant) and I highly recommend you read it in its entirety. I will highlight those portions that most affected me here.

Nothing got more attention than when either tear gas or pepper spray was used to disperse a mob trying to storm our southern border. A woman named Maria Meza became a media darling when she appeared to be running from the tear gas with her two children. She claimed “I thought we were all going to die!” Of course, there were any number of issues with the validity of her outburst, among them is the fact that she has five children (not just two).

[Source: Refugee Women, Children, and Infants Water-cannoned to Death Near US Southern Border—But Democrat/Media Complex Glorifies Perpetrator, by Humberto Fantova]

I am not discounting her fear, but, of course, she and her children were uninjured and her family was never in peril of “all going to die!”

The Fantova article recounts a different episode wherein Cuban men, women and children were attempting to escape the oppressive Castro communist government in Cuba. He tells us of the travails of Maria Garcia, a true refugee from brutality. She was a member of a group that was trying to reach the US on a small boat. But I am confident you never heard of her.

Unlike Maria Meza whose children were unharmed, Maria Garcia’s son, husband, brother, sister, two uncles and three cousins all died in a vicious, wanton and cold-blooded massacre. In all, 43 (genuine) Cuban refugees were killed (11 children including Carlos Anaya, age 3; Yisel Alvarez , age 4; and Helen Martinez, age 6 months).

Jesus Gonzalez was captain of a Cuban naval vessel, a steel-prowed Russian cutter. He rammed the cutter into the poorly constructed boat in which the refugees were fleeing. He then used his water cannon against dozens of women and children clinging desperately to the sinking boat. The steel patrol boat then rammed the sinking craft two more times.

[Directly from the Fantova article] “We have women and children aboard!” The escapee men yelled. “We’ll turn around! OK?!” WHACK! the Castroites answered the plea by ramming them again (for the THIRD time). In seconds the escapee craft started coming apart and sinking.

This sounds too macabre to be true, say you. Well, say I, the episode is well documented.

Why bring up this particular episode, ask you? I bring it up for two reasons, answer I. First, to show you Fidel Castro’s response to the event and second to show you what the left-wing media moguls thought of Fidel Castro during his tenure as Communist Murderer in Chief.

So, was Jesus Gonzalez drawn and quartered in Havana’s Plaza de la Revolución? No, he was decorated by Fidel Castro. “This was a very heroic and patriotic act!” Fidel Castro gushed on August 5, 1994 while bestowing Gonzalez with the medal entitled “Hero of the Revolution.” He went on to say “Magnificent job defending the glorious revolution, companero!” God save us from such tyrants.

You will be interested to hear the many accolades the left-wing media bestowed on Castro [taken from the Fantova article]:

  • “Fidel Castro could have been Cuba’s Elvis!” (Dan Rather.)
  • “Fidel Castro is old-fashioned, courtly–even paternal, a thoroughly fascinating figure!” (NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.)
  • “Castro’s personal magnetism is still powerful, his presence is still commanding. Cuba has very high literacy, and Castro has brought great health care to his country.” (Barbara Walters.)
  • “Fidel Castro is one hell of a guy! You people would like him! Most people in Cuba like him.” (CNN founder Ted Turner at Harvard Law School during a speech in 1997. Within weeks CNN was granted its coveted Havana Bureau, the first ever granted by Castro to a foreign network.)
  • “Fidel Castro…educated (Cuban) kids, gave them healthcare, totally transformed the society.” (Democrat Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders.)
  • “Viva Fidel! Viva Che!” (Two-time candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination Jesse Jackson, bellowing while arm in arm with Fidel Castro himself in 1984.)
  • “Fidel Castro is very shy and sensitive, I frankly like him and regard him as a friend.” (Democrat presidential candidate, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and “Conscience of the Democrat party,” George McGovern.)
  • “Fidel Castro first and foremost is and always has been a committed egalitarian. He wanted a system that provided the basic needs to all Cuba has superb systems of health care and universal education…We greeted each other as old friends.” (Former President of the United States and official “Elder Statesman” of the Democrat Party, Jimmy Carter.)

If you need to vomit now I will understand.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Oh, the horror of it! What? Plastic straws!

I frequently use a straw to drink a beverage. I hate paper straws. I like plastic straws.

[Source: Plastic Straw Ban Crusades Are About Progressive Virtue Signaling, Not Practical Solutions, by Jarrett Stepman]

Among the all-time dumbest, virtue-signaling “movements” by the left is the banning of plastic straws. It is rampant in my neighborhood and now has come to the nation’s capital. The DC ban extends beyond restaurants, to bars, churches, and day care centers.

Seattle was the first city to ban plastic straws. The “anti-plastic-straw-movement” continues to gain traction. To call this matter trivial seems unnecessary, but virtue-signalers love this kind of stuff.

The “straw problem” has been magnified to a remarkable degree. While everyone agrees that there is an issue with plastic buildup in the ocean, just a tiny amount of it is composed of straws. According to a recent study, straws make up only 2,000 tons of the 9 million tons of plastic waste that hit the oceans every year. While straws are part of the problem they constitute only 0.0002 (two ten thousandths) of the problem.

But when looked at from the perspective of the US contribution (where the “anti-plastic-straw-movement” has its greatest strength) to the plastic waste that ends up in the ocean the concept makes the words ludicrous, absurd, ridiculous, risible, preposterous, and asinine seem like compliments. The data below is from 2010 but China and the other Asian nations leading the list have done little, if anything, to ameliorate the problem. (Plastic marine debris can be seen on the right hand side of the graph.)

Furthermore, over three-quarters of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch mass is comprised of larger pieces of plastic debris and at least 46% of that was comprised of fishing nets. (Plan on the next virtue-signaling campaign to be “NO MORE FISHING IN THE OCEAN!” – at least that campaign might have a real impact, but I wouldn’t hold my breath awaiting either its appearance or success).

As well, there are some highly suspect statistics floating around the internet. [Directly from the Stepman article] (These include) one that claims Americans use 500 million straws a day. But this number came from an informal phone survey of a 9-year-old boy-turned-activist, according to a report by Reason.

Angela Logomasini, a researcher at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a pro-free market nonprofit, said that while plastic buildup in waterways and oceans is a problem, it’s not one that will be affected by straw bans.

“The problem is a disposal problem,” Logomasini said, according to The Washington Times. “Most of it is in Asia and Africa because they have open dumps and they pour tons of trash into the ocean. They don’t have the proper disposal methods. If you dispose of something properly, it’s not a problem.

As the evidence shows, straws are not the problem, so why is such a seemingly trivial matter becoming such a big deal with the virtue-signaling left? Let’s look at some quotes from leftist publications:

  • “Banning plastic straws won’t save the ocean. But we should do it anyway.” (Vox.com)
  • “Our straw campaign is not really about straws.” (Dune Ives, the executive director of Lonely Whale)
  • “It’s about pointing out how prevalent single-use plastics are in our lives, putting up a mirror to hold us accountable.” (Vox.com)

As is so typical of virtue-signalers they are not trying to find solutions to the problem. Inconvenience be damned! Utility be damned! We’re “good!” You’re “bad!” (Pat ourselves on the back and waggle a finger at you.) And, lucky for these holier-than-thou leftists, they have the “State” (Blue states, of course) to issue bans on trivial and meaningless things.

Could there be a more poignant example of the reason I spend all this time writing The Rugged Individualist? Big government is bad government. It’s axiomatic.

And, my friends, the great Straw Wars of 2018 are only just the beginning. There is no end to the “goodness” the virtue-signaling left intends to impose on you!

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Obama wants to take credit for Trump accomplishments.

I very much disliked Obama’s policies and considered them a detriment to the Nation. But it is so bizarre to see him trying to establish a “legacy” by taking credit for Trump’s accomplishments.

[Source: Barack Obama’s failed reset, by Laura Ingraham]

Barack Obama gave a speech recently at Rice University in Houston. Here is some of what he said.

“I just want you to… Sometimes you go to Wall Street and folks would be grumbling about anti-business. I said have you checked where your stocks were when I came into office (the Market cratered on February 9, 2009 less than a month after he took office – there was nowhere to go but up) and where they are now. What are you talking — what are you complaining about? Just say thank you please.”

Admittedly Obama became President (January 2009) during the Great Recession. However the recession ended in June, 2009. He was president until January 2016 or 2391 days or 6 years, 6 months, 17 days or 78 months, 17 days after the recession ended. There is ample evidence that his was the worst recovery after a recession since the Great Depression. There is also reasonably good evidence of a pattern that indicates that the worse the recession the stronger the recovery.

Despite all the time available for the Obama recovery to occur, it is only fair to look at the end of his presidency to assuage all of the Obama supporters. The analysis below only takes into account the final six quarters of Obama’s presidency.

Let’s look at GDP growth.  A recent analysis by Andy Pudzer (one-time Trump labor secretary nominee) was published in the Wall Street Journal.

GDP growth staggered along at 1.5 percent in Mr. Obama’s final six full quarters in office. But growth doubled to 3 percent during Mr. Trump’s first six full quarters.”

It is difficult to argue that Obama didn’t have “enough time.” It is also difficult to argue that the near instantaneous transition from economic doldrums to strong economic growth following Trump’s inauguration had anything to do with Obama policies initiated years earlier.

Democrat sycophants love to tout “job creation” under Obama. And there were a lot of jobs created. But let’s look at what was happening to “job creation” in the last couple years of Obama’s presidency and the (again) instantaneous change when Trump took the reigns of office.

[From the Pudzer article] “(The) increase in job openings over Mr. Trump’s first 21 months has averaged an impressive 75,000 a month. But over Mr. Obama’s last 20 months in office, the number of job openings increased an average of 900 a month.

As well during his speech Mr. Obama said, “And by the way, American energy production, you wouldn’t always know it but, you know, it went up every year when I was president. And you know that whole, suddenly America is like the biggest oil producer and the biggest — that was me, people.”

The first part of his statement is true. Crude oil production surged during the Obama administration. However, Obama coincidentally entered office just as the shale oil boom in the U.S. was ramping up.

In actuality Obama strongly curtailed drilling on federal lands and banned new offshore drilling. The increase in oil and natural gas production during the Obama administration came on private lands. On land that the U.S. government controls, it was a different story. The EIA reported in 2015 that while U.S. oil and gas production overall were surging, production of natural gas on federal lands was declining and oil production was stagnated.

It’s strikes me as disingenuous to claim credit for increased oil production when every effort of your administration tried to end fossil fuel production. The surge in crude oil production happened despite his administration, and not because of it.

So I say to Mr. Obama, please take your seat as the worst president in the history of the Republic and please stop trying to tell anyone with a brain that the accomplishments of President Trump belong to you.

Roy Filly

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is seeing really believing?

The belief by the vast majority of humans that “seeing is believing” is frequently used by the media to create a false impression (“fake news”). I do not know who put this pictorial essay together. If I did I would appropriately credit them.

I also don’t know who the person below is, but the top image can be used by the media to give the wrong impression – so likely a Republican. Just a little camera angle change!

I am confident that all of my readers are familiar with “green screen” video backgrounds so commonly used by TV weathermen. Below is a low tech mechanism to make the reporter appear to be “on location.”

Abby D. Philip is one of the CNN White House Correspondents. During the 2016 campaign she tweeted “Big boisterous crowd here in Omaha for Hillary Clinton and Warren Buffet.” Do you think there is a chance that CNN had a bias during the election campaign (that possibly spilled over to the Trump presidency)?

 

 

Here is another big Hillary campaign gathering!

The media wants you to see this US soldier as threatening a young boy… NOT!

This media image leaves one with the impression that Theresa May (British Prime Minister) had a throng of people as she began a campaign bus tour.

In this particularly egregious example the media hand this young man a rock and something that looks like a gun. Then he picked up the water bottle he actually was carrying.

Trump “caged” children at the border! But did he? Talk about staging!

My friends, please consider our President’s continuing claims of “fake news” with a new perspective.

And thanks to BC for sending this to me.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Ocasio-Cortez: The accidental truth.

There are all sorts of memes of Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that show her making moronic statements. Of course, these were invented for their humor. However, occasionally, as the Beltway saying goes, a politician actually makes a truly moronic mistake and speaks the truth.

In a recent MSNBC interview she told Chris Hayes the TRUTH – and it tells you everything you need to know about the Progressive movement.

[Source: The Seven Craziest Things Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Has Said So Far, by Scott Moorefield]

Her first official public act was to join a sit-in opposing the reinstatement of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. I predicted she would still vote for her and I stand by the prediction.

But here is what she said when asked about a letter sent by 16 Democrats opposing Pelosi’s speakership. The following was her analysis of the letter.

“I mean, if anything, I think that what it does is that it creates a window where we could potentially get more conservative leadership. And when you actually look at the signatories, it is not necessarily reflective of the diversity of the party. We have about 16 signatories, 14 of them are male. There are very few people of color in the caucus. There’s very few ideological diversity. It’s not like there are Progressives that are signing on. It’s not like you have a broad-based coalition. So I find it — you know, I’m not totally bought into the concept.”

Let us forget for a moment that she needs to go back to “grammar” school. Let us forget, as well, that a coherent sentence is probably not in her immediate future and analyze the substance of her statement.

She just told us in no uncertain terms what drives “consensus” in the Democrat Party. She made no comment on the substance of the letter. Indeed, unless you are familiar with “identity politics” her statement seemed like gibberish. In Ocasio-Cortez’s world, which is the world of the Progressive far left, one cannot “buy into a concept” that is not supported by those with the correct skin color, gender, etc. The validity of the “concept” apparently has more to do with the gender and skin color of the adherents than the merits of the concept itself.

You can read the letter below (footnote). It appears Democrats cannot commit to “real change in Washington” without the right mix of races and genders.

Roy Filly

Footnote:

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Commonalities of the various leftist philosophies.

I recently passed my 26 hundredth post. Most of that writing has been about the failures of the modern leftist movement. I never thought I would need to write the following sentence. I am now in the minority as an American who is extremely proud of his Nation.

I attribute this devastating trend to the leftist use of identity politics. They tell every ethnic, racial and gender group of Americans why they should have a grievance against another group of Americans. It begs the question, if white America (still the majority demographic) is so hostile to (Hispanic, Muslim, women, etc.) groups, why are there caravans of tens of thousands of these individuals walking across Mexico to arrive here? (Venezuela would be a much shorter walk.)

Their reasons, at least as far as I have heard, are to “find a job.” So I ask, which political party has spawned the great job growth we are experiencing (there was a dearth of illegal immigration during the Great Recession)? The next most common reason is to “escape violence.” So I ask, which political party would you call “the law and order party?” Which political party denigrates our police officers? And which American cities have the greatest violence and which political party governs those cities?

[Sources; Charting the Danger of the Modern Left, by Stephen Moore (Mr. Moore quotes heavily from Know Thine Enemy: A History of the Left, by Mark Melcher and Steve Soukup]

The history of leftist movements began during the Enlightenment according to the studies of Melcher and Soukup. They write in the introduction:

“(The left) emerged in the eighteenth century during the so-called Enlightenment period, and was based on the belief that science and reason should replace religion as the foundation of a modern society. The purveyors of this new ideology had trouble agreeing on details of this new belief system, and this resulted in the wide proliferation of leftist prototypes, among the best-known of which are communism, socialism, Marxism, fascism, and, in the United States, progressivism and liberalism.”

Before my Democrat readers get all in a lather, I am not suggesting that these leftists philosophies are the same. There are, of course, many significant differences. However, they do have some commonalities and share several important philosophical ideas.

These commonalities and philosophical constants are (from the Melcher and Soukup book):

  • an aversion to Christianity and religion generally
  • an aversion to capitalism
  • lack of a strong concept of (and, among some, a belief in) private property
  • a belief in the perfectibility of mankind
  • a belief in the superiority of reason over faith
  • a claim to an affinity with the working classes
  • a belief in the achievability of a world order where there is peace, equality, and prosperity, free from the evils that religion had foisted on mankind.

Some of these philosophical concepts appear quite admirable and in that I would concur. However, these two political historians are able to draw a straight line from Voltaire and Rousseau to the United States and its “progressives.” So what is it about this philosophy that I see as a consistent failure? Each leftist scheme is “dedicated to undermining the existing order and creating a ‘new’ man — whether he likes it or not.”

To me the whole of the problem lies in the notion of the “collective.” Their consistent failure is written in the DNA of 7 billion humans. There will never be a “collective.” I guess they could create this new world order by cloning Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton a few billion times over and then getting rid of the rest of us. But short of that, they have grossly misjudged the DNA of those they believe they can convince to “join the collective.”

The alternative to altering everyone’s DNA is to establish a forceful government. Some were extremely forceful (the German Reich, Communist Russia, Cambodia) or somewhat less “forceful” (Cuba) or American Progressivism (the government “knows best”). I read our Founders as believing the exact opposite.

[Directly from the Moore article] Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Mao, Pol Pot, Antifa, Castro, Che Guevara and the like use power to reduce the sanctity of the individual for the common good of the collective. It is a kind of enslavement that degrades the human spirit and makes us poorer over time. But the real villains here are not the leftists of yesteryear who set back the quest for human freedom and material progress, but the modern left — the academics, the politicians, the media mavens — who know, or should know, full well the destruction and retardation of statism, but still selfishly pursue it.

I consider the US Constitution as the most important political document ever conceived. And I believe it agrees with the founding principle of why I write The Rugged Individualist. “Big government is bad government; its axiomatic.”

Roy Filly

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My annual Thanksgiving post.

Dear Readers,

First, I would like to wish each of you a Happy Thanksgiving and thank you once again for reading the meanderings of my mind put to words. Today I will repost the observations of Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford. They are prescient of the circumstances in which America finds itself entangled today.

Roy Filly

The Democrat Party never considers the possibility that socialism, statism, collectivism, central control, and progressivism are failed concepts. It can’t possibly be that the failed notions of John Maynard Keynes should be buried alongside him.

I read a story recently that really brought this home to me. It was from the very foundations of our nation, the Plymouth Colony. It recounts why progressivism and socialism only sound nice, but do not work!

This is a simple historic recounting from the diary of Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford. From the Heritage Foundation: “The first Pilgrim winters in America were tough. The colonists failed to produce adequate food and shelter, and as a result, many did not survive. But eventually the colony rebounded. The Pilgrims did build sufficient homes and did plant enough crops to feed the entire colony. So great was their bounty that they celebrated with a harvest feast that eventually became the Thanksgiving holiday that we celebrate today. But what was the key to the colony’s turnaround? What drove them from poverty to prosperity? The answer may surprise you.

When the first Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony, all property was taken away from families and transferred to the “common wealth” (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia still refer to themselves as Commonwealths, instead of States. Delaware calls itself a commonwealth in its State Constitution, and Vermont is somewhat more schizophrenic about the term, referring to itself in its State Constitution using both the terms “State” and “Commonwealth.” However, the term no longer implies communal sharing of all property as it did in the Plymouth Colony – RF). In other words, the Pilgrims tried to do away with private property. The results were disastrous. According to Bradford, the stronger and younger men resented working “for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” And the women, forced to cook and clean for other men, saw their uncompensated servitude as “a kind of slavery.” The system as a whole bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the Pilgrims’] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” Others tragically perished.

It was not until private property rights were restored and every man was allowed to “set corn for his own particular” that prosperity came to the colony. Bradford reported, “This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious…Much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Women went willingly into the field and took their little ones with them to set corn.”

After witnessing the experiment Bradford concluded that the elimination of private property was incompatible with human nature. Venezuela is the most recent experiment of this kind. The result was the same. What was Einstein’s definition of insanity? It was “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The problems with progressivism/socialism/statism aren’t the bad breaks of the economy or the evil players arrayed against their “benevolent” goals. The problem is that it is incompatible with human nature! To my progressive friends, you are never ever going to win that one! As it turns out, you are dealing with HUMANS.

Of some interest, the foundation of Ayn Rand’s (my guru’s) concept for the true role of government, is that governments must, first and foremost, protect individual property rights.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments