When No Symptoms is a Symptom

In the same sense that I don’t deny the existence of a god, I just recognize there is no proof of one, I don’t deny there was a pandemic, I just don’t see any evidence of one. I think it’s fair to say that if people had been dropping dead in the streets, nobody would have had to be told there’s something going on. They would have been avoiding each other like the plague – to turn a phrase – and taken whatever measures they felt necessary to protect themselves. The politicians probably wouldn’t have been able to pull people from their homes. The hashtag would have been #ComeOut rather than #StayHome. But people weren’t dropping dead in the streets like in the pictures transmitted from Wuhan, China. That was probably the first head scratcher for me. How was it that the virus was so dangerous in China but nowhere else in the world?

The second head scratcher was when the CDC changed its policy on determining cause of death specifically for covid. From the CDC website:

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. 

Meaning that even if someone tested negative, even if someone had no symptoms the attending physician had the discretion to decide covid was the official cause of death. Why would such arbitrary and subjective policies be necessary in the midst of a real pandemic? Wouldn’t such a policy absolutely inflate the mortality numbers and present a false impression of the situation? How could it not? Why would the CDC feel the need to inflate the numbers?

After that, the head scratchers came so fast and furious I thought I had head lice, then they just got stupid.

You would have expected the restrictions to be objective, medically based and the same everywhere but instead they varied from state to state depending on the political bend of the government. A political pandemic by definition.

The media was caught numerous times spreading misleading information, sensationalizing stories and outright lying. Why would they feel the need to lie and sensationalize the pandemic if it’s real? Shouldn’t the truth have been sufficient?

You had to cover your face with something, anything, no medical standard required. A surgical mask, a scarf, a sock, an old t-shirt, literally anything. Everyone got to choose for themselves what was medically sufficient to protect them from a dangerous infectious virus.

You had to close your business, except if you owned a corporate chain, college or professional sports team, a Hollywood production company or an airline. Some states allowed bars and restaurants to remain open.

If you wanted to risk your life to go to a bar or restaurant during a pandemic you had to cover your face when you entered but could take it off once you were seated. I feel my IQ dropping just writing this.

If you wanted to risk your life to fly during a pandemic you had to stay 6’ apart and cover your face in the airport. But as soon as you got on the plane you could crowd together to find overhead space and your seat and uncover your face to eat a snack while sitting right next to others.

Sports leagues carried on during the pandemic but without spectators, instead they put cardboard cutouts in the seats to give the impression of fans and for some reason still paid to have security personnel on the field looking up into the stands during the games.

You could be infected and have no symptoms but still infect others and your immune system couldn’t form antibodies. So you had to assume you could always be infected, never out of the clear until the vaccine was available which also doesn’t prevent you from being infected and infecting others. That’s when it went from stupid, passed childish and abusive and right into insanity.

And in true political fashion, the politicians were caught over and over again all over the world, disobeying their own restrictions while punishing others who didn’t obey. Are we to believe  they were sacrificing themselves for the ‘greater good’, risking their lives and the lives of their loved ones knowing that at any moment they could be infected and die? Or does it seem more plausible they knew it was all bullshit, political theater and there was nothing to worry about?

The funniest part was when the world-renowned virologist and immunologist Bill Gates became the face of the vaccine.  And they enlisted other experts like Jimmy Fallon and Stephan Colbert to promote their drugs. They have been telling you all along that it’s a joke.

It was and still is a show, a scripted production, no intelligent person with an ounce of common sense would conclude that this has had anything to do with a virus except as an excuse for new political policy. And now that the issue has been politicized it will be with us for the rest of our lives for the powers that be to leverage when convenient like ‘anthropogenic global warming’ and all the other politicized issues that refuse to die.

The Magic of Fiat Borrowing

Awhile back I posted an article called ‘Your Government is Bankrupt’ and in that article I was right and I was wrong. I was right that the government is bankrupt, bankrupt meaning it takes in less revenue than it spends and can’t pay back its debt, but I was wrong that it matters, it doesn’t, at least not to the government.  

The Federal Reserve prints US dollars out of thin air whenever the government wants it and buys government bonds effectively loaning the government the newly printed money. The Federal Reserve banking system does the same thing for the private sector. Whenever someone borrows money, it’s created out of thin air for the borrower, banks don’t need your deposits to make loans. All US dollars in circulation are debt, if all debt were paid off, there’d be no more USDs in circulation. As the supply of money decreases its value rises and so do interest rates. Higher interest rates would mean less borrowing from the banks by consumers and businesses which is financially detrimental for the banks, so the government ensures that the banks keep making money by keeping interest rates low by borrowing continuously from the FED. It’s a perverse fraudulent financial system that has led to every financial crisis for the last hundred years.

The unfettered money printing inflates the money supply and consumer prices rise, too many dollars chasing all the same goods drives prices up. In the long-run all prices rise including wages and exchange rates so the only real problem for the state is fitting all the zeroes on the banknotes as the banking system prints the value of the dollar into oblivion. Effectively, the government can continue to borrow from the FED to pay back existing debt to the FED and domestic and foreign investors with interest even as it accrues new debt. If inflation becomes hyper, they can just deflate it like the former communist countries did in the early 2000s and start all over again. That’s the magic of fiat money, it’s not real money so its value can be manipulated at will.

The problem for consumers and businesses both domestic and foreign is that inflation eats away at investment returns so investors will stop investing in dollar denominated assets and those with existing investments and contractual rates of return will lose purchasing power, the same thing as losing money. Foreign investment during hyperinflation is what has historically destroyed currencies. Governments borrow money internationally for war and empires and then print the money into worthlessness trying to pay their foreign debt back which, depending on the amount and the interest rate, may or may not be mathematically possible.

Those with fixed incomes and locked in rates of returns like non-governmental retirees will see their returns consumed by inflation as prices rise. Those with variable rate loans will see their monthly premiums skyrocket as banks scramble to preserve their returns. Foreign investors will lose money and not make any further investments in the future and American investors will move abroad. In the end, the US economy will exist in its own little imaginary bubble of paper wealth with little to no new investment except by the state. Production will grind down and all wealth will be inflation as the rest of the world moves forward. The US economy’s trade deficit will balloon far beyond its current $700 billion.

As long as the government borrows in its own currency, it can do so without economic consequences to itself, but there will be economic consequences for both foreign and domestic investment that will eventually isolate the US economy.

No One Likes Being Fat

There’s an ongoing cultural movement to convince fat people that they are healthy and beautiful just the way they are. They don’t have to live up to some unspoken social standard of health and body shape. There’s no need to change their lifestyle, no need to learn to eat healthy and get some regular exercise. They should accept themselves just the way they are and anyone who tells them differently is being offensive and ‘fat shaming’. They are being glamorized on magazine covers and television talk shows. The issue has been politicized to enable people’s bad habits and punish those who aren’t politically correct.

The potential health risks associated with being overweight are well known and doctors have a duty to point them out to patients. That’s why the first thing a doctor does when you go for a checkup is check your height and weight. Those risks include high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, sleep apnea, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver diseases, osteoarthritis, gall bladder disease, back and joint pain to make a short list. It’s irresponsible and mean to try and convince someone who’s fat that they’re healthy rather than addressing the potential risks.

Are fat people beautiful? Are thin people beautiful? Is anyone beautiful? Beauty is not an objective measure, it’s in the eye of the beholder, so to tell people they are objectively beautiful just because they are fat is also mean and misleading. It can lead to unrealistic expectations that society can never live up to. They’ll expect everyone to find them beautiful and when they don’t it can lead to frustration, anger, anxiety and depression. It can strain and damage personal relationships leading to social isolation and psychological issues that fuel the bad habits that led to the situation in the first place.

Regardless of the narrative, the truth is that nobody likes being fat irrespective what they say or what they might have been conditioned to believe. Not because they are shamed by others for not adhering to a social standard but because even the most mundane daily activities are hard when you’re overweight – depending on how much. Simple things like walking any prolonged distance, climbing flights of stairs, getting in and out of a car, getting up off a sofa, social activities with friends like going on hikes, playing sports, summer and winter activities like skiing, skating, dancing, buying clothes, fitting in an airplane seat, buckling a seat belt, sex! Some even have difficulty wiping their backside because they just can’t reach, they have to use a specially made device.

Some circumstances can be humiliating like the unusual shortness of breath or excess perspiration. Not being able to find clothing that fits so they have to wear stretchable shirts and sweatpants and shoes without laces because they can’t bend over to tie them. Or like when the woman was told she couldn’t go horseback riding because she was too heavy for the horse. So they end up sitting on the sidelines watching others enjoy life because they are physically unable to participate. That has to be sad, it has to have a psychological effect on anyone.

That’s why they’ve tried many times to lose weight, and sometimes succeeded, but they’ve never been able to keep the weight off. They’ve disappointed themselves over and over again with their failure to change. Now people are telling them that the solution is to stop trying, there’s no need to disappoint themselves anymore because there’s nothing wrong. It takes caring about someone enough to risk them being mad at you for being honest with them. Most people care more about what others think of them to risk someone being mad at them so they enable the bad habits and perpetuate the problem. And now it’s considered socially unacceptable to be honest, so people lie and pat themselves on the back for being so virtuous, a cultural hero regardless of the consequences to others. That’s politics for you.

Nonsense – The Short List

Why do people make their bed every morning?
Why do people wash their hands before they eat but not after?
Why do people wash their hands after they use the bathroom but not before?
Why is it disrespectful to wear a hat indoors?
Why are some obscenities considered offensive but others aren’t?
Why do men stand when a woman sits down or stands up from a table?
Why do people use their turn signal when there’s nobody behind them?
Why do people wait for the light to turn green at a crosswalk when there’s not a car in sight?
Why do people get mad at those who drive in the left lane when they can just change to the right lane?
Why do flight attendants show you how to buckle and unbuckle a seatbelt?
Why does drain cleaner have a warning label not to drink it?
Why is placement of the ball in a football game subjectively arbitrary but the measurements for a first down so precise?
Why does a quarterback get credit for a 99 yard pass if he only threw it one yard and the receiver ran the other 98?
Why are there individual awards in team sports?
Why do baseball players take on a 3-0 count when they know the next pitch will be right down the middle?
What do the military, flags and the national anthem have to do with sporting events?
Why is it considered disrespectful not to stand when the national anthem plays?
How can soldiers be sent to war when there is no war without the soldiers?
Why is it illegal to speed but legal for cops to speed in order to catch speeders?
If speed kills, why aren’t all race car drivers dead?
If drinking and driving is illegal, why is it legal for people to drive to bars and why do bars have parking lots?
Why do people show unusual respect to anyone dressed in religious clothing?
Why are stores closed on Sunday and not any other arbitrary day?
When people say ‘thank god’, which one are they referring to?
If both teams pray to god to win a game, how does god decide?
If god is everywhere, why do you have to go to a church to worship him?
If the church is god’s house how come the parishioners have to pay for it?
If confession absolves you from your sins, can you sin all you want as long as you confess?
Why do parents tell their kids there’s no such thing as ghosts and then start every prayer with ‘in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost’?
What does a fat old man and elves have to do with the birth of Christ?
What does a rabbit and eggs have to do with the ascension of Christ?
Why do people get so excited about New Years Eve and not any other arbitrary eve?
Why do people believe that having any college degree gives you ‘something to fall back on’?
If the constitution is meant to create a government to protect our rights, why the need for the Bill of Rights to protect our rights from the government?
If the constitution creates the authority for the supreme court, isn’t it a conflict of interest for the supreme court to interpret the constitution?
If swearing on a bible in court that you won’t lie is meant to ensure that people won’t lie, why are there laws that punish people for lying in court?

Why is selling sex for money illegal but if you film it and call it porn it’s legal?

Politics is for the Infantile and the Insane

Remember when we were children in grade school, we were mean and selfish and loud and called each other names like ‘retarded’ and ‘stupid’. We talked over one another trying to drown out the other kids so we could get attention and the teacher would have to yell and bang something to get the class to settle down. We’d argue with one another using childish language like ‘nah ah’ and ‘ya-ha’ as if we were so smart and important and right. We’d make up silly monikers for kids to make fun of them depending on their name. If your name was ‘Mary’ then you were called ‘Mary Mary Had a Little Lamb’ or if your name was ‘Donald’ you were called ‘Donald Duck’, Tony was ‘Tony Bologna’ and if your last name was Hammond then you were ‘Hambone’. We’d lie and cheat to avoid getting in trouble and being punished and if caught we’d apologize and swear we’d never do it again knowing damn well we would if we thought it was necessary. Every school had bullies who would intimidate and try to frighten the other kids to get what they wanted whether it be attention, lunch money, your candy bar or just to feel like a big man.

We did those things because we were kids, we were emotionally immature and we didn’t understand things like respect, consideration, compassion, character, integrity, honor or humanity. Everything was interesting and fun, the world was our oyster and we were full of energy and wanted to explore it all. We didn’t have time for worrying about others or how our actions affected them. But we were supposed to mature emotionally and become adults. We were supposed to stop being selfish and calling each other names. We were supposed to stop lying and cheating and bullying, and some did, a lot maybe but there is one place where the culture is no different than it was in grade school: politics.

What is ‘Libtard’ and ‘Trumptard’ if not the political version of the grade school ‘retard’? Isn’t that what the ‘tard’ suffix is meant to imply? Grown adults calling each other ‘retarded’? What are the unruly congressional and parliamentary sessions where people talk over one another and jeer and sling snide comments at each other if not tantamount to the unruly grade school classroom with each child posturing for attention? And if it gets loud and unruly enough someone bangs a gavel and tells everyone to settle down just like the teacher used to do. Hell they even refer to a break in the chaos as ‘recess’ just like in grade school.

What is ‘RINO’ or ‘Neo-con’ or ‘MAGA Republican’ if not made up monikers in order to make fun of and chide people? What are congressional hearings if not two people spending hours going back and forth with ‘yes you did’, ‘no I didn’t’, ‘yes you did’, the political version of ‘nah ah’, ‘ya-ha’, ‘nah ah’. Or one accusing the other that they have ‘no idea what they’re talking about’, the political version of calling someone stupid and in the end absolutely nothing is ever accomplished. Rand Paul and Fauci have spent hours over the past two years doing just that. Repeating the same meaningless argument over and over again to no conclusion.

Politicians, those involved in politics and the media reporting on politics are infamous throughout history for lying, cheating, stealing and manipulating. Politicians outright lie with impunity both on the campaign trail and in office and the media brazenly prints exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies to push a political narrative. Then they apologize, swear it was an honest mistake and then they do it over and over again. ‘Law Enforcers’ have their own Wikipedia page chronically ‘Police Abuse’ going back 150 years. What are they if not bullies who use intimidation and fear to control people.

What kind of person, adult, would associate himself with such a childish, immature culture? They’d either have to be insane or their emotional maturity would have to have been ‘retarded’. Politics is for the infantile and the insane.

The Logical Fallacies of Government

It’s not difficult to find a formal or informal logical fallacy in every aspect of politics but one of the most predominant used by those trying to defend it is denying the antecedent in order to justify what the state does. Denying the antecedent is when it is fallaciously assumed that if one thing leads to another, then the lack of that one thing will lead to the lack of the other. It’s when someone argues: without [insert government program here] there wouldn’t be [insert benefit to society here]. I call it the ‘God Fallacy’ since government is assumed to be the one and only solution to a problem, without which we’d be doomed.

Formally it’s written: if P, then Q , therefore if not P, then not Q. For example: “If you are a ski instructor, then you have a job. You are not a ski instructor, therefore, you have no job.” This fallacy implies that ONLY ski instructors can have jobs which we know is false.

One of many common examples is foreign wars. Political policy says that the military is fighting terrorism over there, so we can be safe over here. Is it true that if the military was not fighting terrorism over there, we would not be safe over here? That would imply that only if the military is over there can we be safe over here which is impossible to prove and there’s no historical precedence for it. You can’t measure and quantify something that didn’t happen, such as how much terrorism didn’t happen over here thanks to the military being over there, and conclude a causal relationship. That’s a correlation and causation fallacy as well which fallaciously assumes that since two events are correlated, one caused the other such as the lions and rose petals parable. The parable says that if you put rose petals in front of your door every night before you go to bed it will keep the lions away. The fact that you haven’t seen any lions proves that rose petals work.

Some like to justify war by claiming that thanks to war, new technology was developed that wouldn’t have been otherwise. Or thanks to NASA we have cellphones etc. Again, it’s impossible to prove that something would not happen if something else did not happen. The idea that people would just sit around on their hands waiting for a government if they needed something contradicts all of human history. Many times it’s the inefficiency of government that inspires innovation and invention, not the other way around.

Another common one is law enforcement. Political policy says that law enforcement keeps us safe from crime. Is it true that without law enforcement we would not be safe from crime? It implies that only because of law enforcement can we be safe from crime. Considering there’s so much crime in society that is obviously not true and, like the military, it’s impossible to prove how much crime didn’t happen because of law enforcement so another fallacy. We have to also consider that the private security industry is a billion dollar a year industry because of people taking responsibility for their own safety. Privacy fences, motion sensor flood lights, motion sensor video surveillance, in home security systems as well as neighborhood watch programs and neighbors helping one another out. Obviously there are effective alternatives.

Welfare programs keep poor people from dying in the streets. Is it true that if there were no welfare programs, poor people would be dying in the streets? This implies that the only reason a poor person doesn’t die in the street is thanks to government welfare programs which we know is not true and, again, impossible to prove, another fallacy.

Without the ‘War on Drugs’ people would be using life threatening drugs. Is it true that the ‘War on Drugs’ prevents people from using life threatening drugs? Of course not, society is riddled with drugs of all kinds legal and illegal. In fact only a small percentage of drugs are illegal, the vast majority are legal and readily available at the ‘Drug Store’, ironically enough.

It’s because of government that there isn’t chaos. Is it true that without government there’d be chaos? This implies that the only reason I or anyone else doesn’t behave chaotically is because of the existence of government which obviously isn’t true. People behave civilized because they know it’s beneficial to them to work together with others to produce and stay safe. It’s a rational decision for individuals in a society to divide their labor and trade with one another. None of which has anything to do with a government.

Why Lottery Winners Blow the Money

Someone who wins millions in the lottery who isn’t used to having and managing millions doesn’t consider the opportunity costs of the lost future value if they were to invest some of the winnings. They only consider the present value of the money and their short time preferences like food, drink, clothes, car, fun, sex, prestige, popularity etc. They prefer, value those things in the present more than they value the future value of the money.

It’s said in economics that a rational decision is one in which the benefits to the decision maker are subjectively considered to be greater than the costs. For example, when you buy milk, you look at the price and subjectively determine if the value of the milk is worth the price to you. If it is then it’s a rational economic decision to trade the money for the milk. An irrational decision is one in which the costs to the decision maker are subjectively considered to be greater than the benefits, which would make the decision self-destructive. For example, someone under the influence of drugs, alcohol or some other addiction might decide that it’s a good idea to withdraw all their savings and go on a week long binge to Las Vegas without telling anyone.

Wages are determined by productivity, the more productive you are, the more a company is going to be willing to pay you. But there are costs associated with acquiring those wages, you must invest your time, your education, your experience and you must sacrifice all other opportunities to do so. So when you buy milk, you’re really deciding whether you value the milk more than the time, education and experience you had to trade for the money to buy it. If you determine the milk is not worth the costs then you won’t make the trade even though milk might be a necessity.

When someone wins the lottery, the costs of acquiring millions are relatively zero. In other words, relatively speaking you didn’t have to invest anything to acquire the money and there is so much money that you don’t have to sacrifice any other opportunities in the present, you can have it all. If the costs are zero in your cost-benefit analysis, then it is a rational decision to make the trade for anything you value because the benefits will always outweigh the costs.

For example, say you want/need a new car, you will weigh the costs of how long it took you to save the money, all the things you went without or how long and how much you’ll have to pay the car loan against your subjective valuation of the car. If you win the lottery, those costs don’t exist and the benefits immediately outweigh the costs, you’ll buy the car. That goes for everything, if you like looking at women take their clothes off in a strip club the benefits outweigh the costs. If you like eating out every night, the benefits outweigh the costs. If you like seeing the looks on people’s faces when you buy a round at the bar you’ll buy a round at the bar. All perfectly rational economic decisions given the circumstances and it’s exactly what historical experience has shown us will happen.

This economic analysis applies equally to any situation in which the decision maker was given wealth they didn’t earn, like government welfare of any kind, personal or corporate. When corporations are subsidized by the state it’s like winning the lottery, they are given millions to do with as they please. In 2008 the Obama administration gave banks billions of dollars and many of them used that money to give their CEOs bonuses and lavish golden parachute retirement packages. Things they wouldn’t have been so quick to do with their investor’s money but since it was free, it made perfect economic sense. Personal welfare recipients also make what would otherwise be considered reckless decisions like buying cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets and drugs, ‘Booze and Butts’ is what it’s called. Every welfare payday the grocery stores are overrun with those receiving money from the state and they buy things that wouldn’t necessarily be in their budget if they worked for a living and had to earn the money. Ironically, the ‘war on poverty’ keeps people poor for this very reason.

The Federal Reserve Banking System allows banks to create money out of thin air to loan out and since the money doesn’t have to be earned, the costs of the loans to the banks, like the lottery winner, are zero. Ever wonder why you received all those ‘pre-approved’ credit card applications as a senior in college even though you hadn’t graduated yet with your degree in sociology and had absolutely no job prospects? How could the banks be so reckless with their depositor’s money as to risk it on tens of millions of college kids? They weren’t risking their depositor’s money, every time someone swipes a credit card new money is created out of thin air by the issuing bank. The bank doesn’t have to have the money on hand in order to loan money out so they loan it to any and everyone who wants it. That was the triggering mechanism to the 2007-2008 meltdown of the housing market that led to the great recession. Banks were loaning people money for two, three homes even if they were unemployed and had no or bad credit.

The Federal Reserve also creates money out of thin air and loans it to the federal government and other governments around the world but since the government can borrow as much as they want, even to pay back previous loans, the money is free, just like for the lottery winner, so politicians spend it on whatever they want. Governments are notorious for wasting money on the bridge to nowhere, the $100 hammer, unused plane tickets, rent on office space that lays empty, corporate subsidies to companies that go bankrupt, political offices with popcorn machines, hot tubes and large screen TVs to name a few. Things they wouldn’t be able to do in the absence of a central bank with a printing press. No doubt the reason for the ‘Federal Reserve Act’ of 1913 creating a limitless credit card for themselves.

Regardless the source of the free money, history clearly demonstrates the rational economic outcome is preordained: the money will be wasted.

Speed Limit Predators

The state’s justification for speed limits is always the same: “Speed Kills”. So let’s remove the appeals to emotion and other hysteria and sensationalism and examine that hypothesis with rational, logic and common sense.

Let’s consider the extremes, if speed kills in and of itself then anyone who ever orbited the earth in a spacecraft would be dead since they travel at about 27,000 mph. On the other hand, if speed kills in and of itself then someone going just 1 mph could drive over a 1000 ft. cliff and not be killed.

Let’s consider something more specifically in the context of cars like race car drivers and drag racers. If speed kills in and of itself then race car drivers and drag racers would all be dead. They all drive at speeds far and above “legal speed limits”.

As obvious as these examples may seem, they clearly demonstrate that speed in and of itself does not kill anyone. So how do we explain the discrepancy between the state’s justification and reality? The explanation is that there are many dependent factors that cannot be ignored that determine if someone’s speed is appropriate or not, speed in and of itself explains absolutely nothing.

Significant factors include:

  1. Visibility – day or night, foggy or clear, raining, snowing etc.
  2. The state of the car – new or old, good brakes or bad, lights etc.
  3. The experience of the driver – inexperienced or experienced.
  4. The state of the driver – old with poor reflexes, angry, distracted, tired, impaired etc.
  5. The state of the road – old or new, narrow or wide, under poor repair, icy, slippery etc.
  6. Traffic – crowded or open road, fast flow or slow etc.

A young, experienced driver with a new car on a wide open road on a sunny day may be able to safely exceed the speed limits and people do every single day. An elderly driver with slow reactions who can’t turn his head to check his blind spot, driving a 30-year-old car on a cloudy day would probably be wise to slow it down. The number of combinations of these factors are in the thousands and it’s impossible to determine the probability that any one of them will result in an accident.

These factors vary individual to individual since everyone is different, everyone is an individual. They also vary from situation to situation. Speed Limit ‘laws’ strip people of their individuality and treat everyone as if they are exactly the same and treat every situation as if it is exactly the same which is prejudicial and unjust. Speeding tickets punish people who have done nothing wrong, who have harmed no one, who have threatened to harm no one, they were simply driving at a speed faster than a number on a sign which is abusive.

Nor does the hypothesis of ‘Speed Kills’ make sense if ‘law enforcers’ regularly exceed the legal speed limits in order to catch up to those exceeding the legal speed limit. The legal double standard implies that even those making the laws and enforcing them don’t seem to believe the hypothesis but still enforce it on the public. That is tyrannical.

There is no rational or logical justification for speed limits that makes sense. The only explanation for speed limits is revenue generation by state agencies. Government institutions don’t produce anything, everything they have they have taken from someone else who did produce it. The concept of contact quotas among law enforcers and expectations that each law enforcer generate his share of the department’s revenues are public knowledge and drivers are easy prey. Everyone has to drive everyday so law enforcers hide behind billboards and under bridges during the day and in the middle of medians with their lights off at night, waiting to pounce.

When individuals are stripped of their individuality they are stripped of their dignity and their humanity. Speed limits are inhumane, tyrannical, prejudicial and unjust and benefit no one but the state.

Does Economics Precede Morality?

For the sake of this discussion I define economics as the choices rational people make.[1] In other words, why people make the choices they make and not just fiscal decisions but all decisions. Why do they accept one job offer over another. Why did they choose to marry this person over another? Why do they drink Jack Daniels instead of Jim Beam? The assumption is that rational people make decisions based on a subjective cost-benefit analysis according to their personal preferences.

Morality is also subjective, it varies widely across individuals, cultures and societies[2]. For the sake of this discussion I define morality as not forcing others to do something they don’t want to do. Immorality would be if you want somebody to give you money and they refuse so you take it by force. Or you want to have sex with someone and they refuse so you force yourself on them.

The question is: does economics precede morality as claimed by some socio-political ideologies? Will the individual make decisions based on his subjective cost-benefit analysis even if it means he has to force others to do something they don’t want to do? If he doesn’t have to force others to do something they don’t want to do then the question of morality is irrelevant. The concept of right is irrelevant without the concept of wrong.

The argument that economics precedes morality implies a causal relationship. It implies that morality is a function of economics and that once the economic decision is made, the morality is out of the control of the individual. That if the economics dictates they have to force others to do something they don’t want to do then that’s what they should/would do. But whether the individual has to force others to do things they don’t want to do also figures into the economic analysis. There are potential consequences to using force on people that have to be considered as a cost in the cost-benefit analysis. That doesn’t mean everyone will weigh those costs the same. A hardened criminal may decide that those costs are acceptable while others will not. Some will consider the burden on their conscience too great to live with others will not.

This implies that the economic decision of a rational person is a function of that person’s subjective preferences and their sense of morality, not the other way around. The idea that economics precedes morality assumes an objective sense of morality. It assumes that even if the economic analysis is a net benefit then the individual will not do it if it means having to use force against others and we know that’s just not the case.

[1] The definition of rational here simply means someone who makes the decision where the benefits outweigh the costs based on his personal preferences.

[2] Excluding force of government’s preferences on society

Guaranteed Student Loans Destroyed the Value of a College Education

There was a time when people had to work and save and scrimp in order to go to college. Those who were really serious about studying did whatever it took to make their dreams come true. They took a year off after high school and worked, they worked summers, they worked during school, they took fewer classes per semester, they ate Ramen noodles, whatever was necessary because it was something they truly valued. They valued it more than the work and sacrifice required to obtain it or else they wouldn’t have done it. Because it was so difficult to obtain a college degree, only the most dedicated succeeded, the supply of college educated workers was commensurate with the subjective costs and benefits of each student obtaining a degree. The supply of graduates was such that they were valued across different industries like the sciences, engineering, health care and education, and they commanded a respectable wage.

Unfortunately, there are always people in any society that don’t think it’s fair that others have something they don’t. They want what others have without having to earn it, without having to pay for it and they know that the best way to get what they want is to use political force, so the issue of college tuition was politicized. When the politicians felt the movement had a sufficiently large enough following – meaning voters — they got involved. Politicians understand that when you give voters what they want, they will vote for you in the next election and politicians have access to all the resources necessary to politicize any issue when there is a critical mass of voters involved.

In typical political fashion, the solution was to just throw money at the issue, subsidize college tuition for students because history has shown that voters like free money and they vote for the politicians giving it to them. So after a healthy gestation period, they gave birth to the bastard son of ‘Medical Insurance’ and they named the unholy child ‘The Guaranteed Student Loan Program’. The program was meant for banks to indiscriminately loan students money for college tuition and expenses. Normally, qualification and interest rates for a bank loan are based on risk, current debt/equity ratio and how likely the borrower is to faithfully repay the loan with interest. Guaranteed Student Loans, however, didn’t take any of those things into consideration, the only thing that mattered was supposed ‘financial need’. The poorer you and your family were, the more money you could borrow with no obligations until six months after you graduated.

There’s a well known principle in politics that whenever the government subsidizes something, you always get more of it. In the case of college tuition, that was exactly the plan; to indiscriminately get more kids going to college that otherwise wouldn’t have without any regard as to why they otherwise wouldn’t have. There’s also a well known economic principle that when the costs of obtaining money are zero, you benefit from whatever you decide to spend the money on regardless what it is. That’s why lottery winners blow millions and welfare recipients buy booze, cigarettes, lottery tickets and drugs. Although student loans aren’t free, they are expected to be paid back, 18-year-olds aren’t expected to begin paying them back for at least four years or longer if they go to graduate school. The time horizon is so far out in their minds that it’s practically the same as being free money to them. You can even drop out of classes after you receive your student loan money and just keep the money and remain eligible to receive more the next semester. So, why not go to college even if you have no interest in anything specific and hadn’t really ever thought about it? One thing we all know happens at college: PARTIES! Student loan money for all practical purposes is fungible after your tuition is taken out so party on Garth.

In the sixties and seventies, college enrollment exploded thanks to guaranteed student loans and universities scrambled to keep up logistically with the demand. Revenues were up so they built new housing facilities and new classrooms. But they still had money to spend so they built student recreational centers, invested heavily in football teams and built common areas with shops, bowling alleys and eateries. They went from institutions of higher learning trying to attract the best and the brightest to theme parks trying to attract the most student loan money. And how do you attract young people to your ‘school’ so they can give you their student loan money? Offer them things that they value rather than the things the university values and used to pride itself on like education, distinction and professional capabilities. Sell your educational and professional integrity and give them whatever they want for money. The educational equivalent of the world’s oldest profession.

Truth is, they had to prostitute their institutions because if even one university did it, they all had to do it to remain competitive or risk going out of business altogether. The Guaranteed Student Loan program is a real poison destroying everything it touches. Students started deciding which school to go to based on how good the football team was, what facilities the rec center had, what kind of meal plans there were and their reputation for partying. There’s even an online index for tracking the top ‘party schools’. Students didn’t care what they studied, that’s not why they were really there, so universities offered courses of study that were low cost for them and logistically easy to support. It no longer mattered if the student’s university experience prepared him for any particular field of work or not, just as long as they could keep him enrolled as long as possible. Want a bachelors in sociology or history, they will gladly offer it to you. A masters in women’s studies, a Ph.D. in Russian Poetry, no problem, step right up. Some universities even allow the students to ‘design’ their own ‘educational program’. The customer is always right.

This also meant a decline in academic integrity. Universities were less likely to expel a student for academic improprieties and risk losing his student loan money. The number of degree programs ballooned right along with student enrollment to the point that formerly valued graduates were now wading through a flooded market. And as the supply of anything increases, the value of each one decreases. College graduates have seen their opportunities and salaries decline, they have staggering student loan debt and many aren’t able to find work in their field.

Translate »