Some Observations about American Economic Growth

They say that the first million dollars is the hardest.  Each successive million dollars of gross revenues is easier than the previous million dollars; growing from $1 million to $2 million is easier than earning the first $1 million, and growing from $10 million to $11 million is easier still than growing from $1 million to $2 million (all examples of simple $ growth).  The reason is easy to understand: whatever it is you’re doing, doing it again is easier; practice makes perfect (and after a while it is just more marketing).  On the other hand, it is easier to grow your business by 10% while your business is still young.  For example, growing from $10 million to $11 million is easier than growing from $100 million to $110 million is easier than growing from $10 billion to $11 billion (all cases of 10% growth).  The same is true of stock prices.  Adding $1 to a stock price of $10 is harder than adding $1 to a stock price of $100 (simple $ growth).  But growing the stock price by 10% from $1.00 to $1.10 is easier than growing it 10% from $100 to $110.00 (%age growth).  All “mature” corporations had their most explosive %age rates of growth (gross revenues or price of a share of stock) while they were young.  And what is true about the rate of a corporation's growth and the increase in the value of a share of stock is equally true of a nation’s economy – its GDP – which is pretty much the aggregate of millions of companies big and small; it is easier for a GDP to grow from $1 trillion to $1.1 trillion than it is to grow from $10 trillion to $11 trillion (10% growth).  All “mature” economies had their most explosive rates of growth while they were young; mature economies do not grow as fast as youthful economies.  China, with its 7% rate of economic growth, is not a “dynamic” economy, it is a young economy; the U.S., with its 1% to 2% rate of economic growth, is not a “static” economy, it is a mature economy.  And it is “stuck” with the fact that a mature economy does not grow as fast as a young economy.  Changing the party of the occupant of the White House will not change that.

Messing with the Right to Vote

OK, I can hear some of you already: “That Ben Paine, he is totally off his rocker; his idea is bad enough, but publishing it is a sure sign of really losing it!”

OK, what’s it all about?

Democracy!  And who has the right to vote.

You have heard me say that a democracy is the ONLY way to go; any other form of government – oligarchy (rule by a few) or monarchy (rule by one) – is a form of tyranny, because no matter how benevolent they may be, they are NOT self-rule, they are NOT We the People ruling ourselves.  And you have heard me say that everyone should exercise his right to vote, it is his civic duty, it is the least he can do!  But I’d like to impose some conditions on a citizen’s right to vote.  Just to make things interesting.

A Study of Gun Violence in the USA

I am going to talk about guns in a way you have never seen before, so hold on.

Fighting City Hall

In the first few sentences of the very first essay (A Citizen’s Manifesto) in my book To My Countrymen, I suggest that a good citizen doesn’t run away from fighting City Hall, that he indeed engages City Hall when he must, and that he wins – every time.  I wrote this essay two decades ago, and I meant it to suggest that part of our collective powerlessness is our own doing.  If we aren’t willing to fight for what we want, it is our own damn fault that we don’t get it.  And that when we do fight, we always win (yeah, and I know that the fight takes time and effort, and sometimes persistence).

The Libertarian Creed

I have a friend who is going to vote the Libertarian line this election cycle, and I applaud him for it – over the wrong-headed protests of those who mindlessly chant “you're wasting your vote.”  He is right to vote third party, and I have argued the point over and over again in my book To My Countrymen, because we must break the stranglehold of our antiquated and mischievous two-party system.

I thought it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote "that government is best that governs least."  But, evidently it was Henry David Thoreau, no slouch as American thinkers go!  So, perhaps Thoreau is the godfather of Libertarian thinking.  Pretty good lineage!

The opening words of the 2016 Platform of the Libertarian Party of the USA are these: “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others (shades of Ayn Rand).”  And “We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.  …  We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”  Damn, sign me up!

Judicial Review

The pre-eminent job of the Supreme Court is to decide whether a particular law is Constitutional.  This is what we have been taught for well over 50 years so it must be true, no?

No!  That is just so much bull-shit!  The Supreme Court is the court of last resort; it is the last place that an unlucky defendant can go for JUSTICE!

Deciding what law may or may not be Constitutional is called “judicial review.”  In Constitutional circles, the very idea that judicial review is a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Court is controversial.  John Marshall, in Marbury v Madison, 1803, asserted the Court’s power of judicial review, and he did so in a way that compelled his enemies to accept his decision.  So, we have over 200 years of the Court’s right to the power of judicial review.  Yet there are still scholars who claim that judicial review is not Constitutionally sanctioned as a power of the Court.

Pro-Life

As abortion is one of America’s premier divisive issues, Americans should be pretty clear what “pro-life” means.  But I am not so sure; I think that there is a lot of confusion about who really is “pro-life.”

Political Death Wishes

As of today, April 15^th, 2016, Real Clear Politics (Averages for the past month) has Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 49.0% to 39.1% (a spread of 9.9%) and Ted Cruz by 46.0% to 42.6% (a spread of 3.4%).  It also has Bernie Sanders beating Trump by 53.4% to 37.1% (a spread of 16.3%) and Cruz by 50.6% to 39.4% (a spread of 11.2%).  Finally, it has John Kasich beating Clinton by 47.3% to 40.6% (a spread of 6.7%) while Sanders beats Kasich by 45.9% to 42.6% (a spread of 3.3%).

If these comparative figures hold through the Republican Convention in the week of July 18^th, 2016, three months from now, it would be a Republican death wish for them to nominate Trump or Cruz, anyone but Kasich.  Of course, they might make the argument that their guy will destroy Clinton or Sanders in the debates, but how often have debates mattered at all?

Universal Suffrage

“Universal suffrage” means everyone has the right to vote.  Everyone a) who is a citizen, b) who is at least 18 years of age (and c) who is not a felon (serving time) (a state by state requirement)).  Universal suffrage does not imply that a “democracy” prevails, because democracy means “the people rule.”  And while the people do choose their leaders, their representatives, their public servants, those who they choose seem more beholden to their “funders” – their significant campaign contributors – than to those who elected them to office in the first place.  This is a huge problem, of course.  It is the core of everything that I write about, that our democracy is a sham.

Fiscal Responsibility

The idea of “fiscal responsibility” is a pretty simple thing: the government pays for what it buys, or it buys no more than what it can pay for (and sometimes it even saves some monies that were collected from taxpayers, and applies them to pay down the National Debt a little).  Fiscal responsibility disappeared during the Reagan years (I know – you don’t believe me; look it up) when the conservative goal of “making government smaller” ran into a wall of Democrats who refused to slash their own precious programs; but Republicans went ahead and cut taxes anyway.  So, they accomplished half of “making government smaller” (the cutting taxes part); while they put the other part (cutting spending) on hold indefinitely.  The result was predictable and has come true with a vengeance for some 35 years: out of control deficits and an exploding National Debt.  This is NOT fiscal responsibility, it is fiscal IR-responsibility.