Tag Archives: peronist economics.

Local power: global storm.

Posted on by

I really want to start with a comment I made over at Tradtional Catholicism. To do this, I’ll have to quote Alte, which gives the Catholic position (which, as is usual, has been carefully formulated over some centuries)

The Catholic Church defines its social doctrine according to four main principles. These principles are considered universal (i.e. Natural Law), as they are the way in which a virtuous and prosperous society is always structured. They are:the dignity of the human person, the common good,subsidiarity (the devolving of power), and solidarity (the integration of society).

Now solidarity is seen in the English speaking world as something of the left. You have solidarity with the working class, the oppressed. And the discussion moved onto politics. This is to be expected, as there is a sense of crisis in both Europe and the United States:and people are looking to the leaders for a solution to markets imploding under a burden of debt.

I disagree. I think the presidents and kings can but posture. It is the people who make the nation, and the people who will make the solution. So, editing down the response, I said.

I think that we need to look beyond politics here. We are called to glorify God in this life. It’s very clear, from the gospels, from Paul, and from the prophets, that part of this is doing good.

What we need to look at is the application. The Church cannot assume that the state will be cooperative with them. On the contrary, you can expect the State to attempt to subvert and dilute the work of the church.

We have to be local. We need to cooperate. The food bank may be in the crypt of the Cathedral, but the Presbyterians and Anglicans are in there working.

This is not Catholic doctrine. It is the Doctrine of the Gospels. It is the doctrine of all churches — if one unpacks the vocabulary. And, as in the Catholics, moving too far into social action, social justice or social gospel corrupts and subverts the commands to do good where you are.

Now, there is a need for the church to speak out: to fund analysis of situations in the world and to apply the principles within the Gospel to the new issues that arise. But we should be thinking locally. We should be thinking of what the congregations can do, not what the government can do for us.

It looks like the governmental experiment in wealth distrubution is failing. The countries that borrowed to provide security — or regulated businesses so that they had to make unwise loans for social engineering reasons — are now highly indebted and at risk of default.

It’s worth looking at what the reformers and the church fathers did. None (or not many of them) and an overwhelming socail network. Calvin did not: Geneva was not poor but neither was it rich in his day. Van Popta comments.

Calvin believed that the blessings of God must be applied to the common good of the church. In his writings he often points to the role that the rich had in society. In his commentaries on II Corinthians he writes: “Thus the Lord recommends to us a proportion of this nature, that we may, in so far as every one’s resources admit, afford help to the indigent, that there may not be some in affluence, and others in indigence.”…

In his commentary on II Corinthians 8:15, Calvin writes,

. . . [H]e has enjoined upon us frugality and temperance, and has forbidden, that anyone should go to excess, taking advantage of his abundance. Let those, then, that have riches, whether they have been left by inheritance, or procured by industry and efforts, consider that their abundance was not intended to be laid out in intemperance or excess, but in relieving the necessities of the brethren. Calvin taught, “Let us share the necessity of those whom we see pressed by the difficulty of affairs, assisting them in their need with our abundance” (2.8.46 410). It is in this context that he preached on the eighth commandment. He instructed the people that the rich had to learn how to be rich [Phil 4:12] (Sermons 193).

Some might be suprised that I am quoting Calvin here. He is supposedly the man who allowed the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism — although people who say that seem to collapse the reformation into the enlightenment. Calvin saw limits, and preached against both avarice and asceticism. For the material things of this world are to be enjoyed, but not to rule us.

Where this classical teaching can help us is the sense of locality. The wealthy are to help: true, But they are to help locally. We should have collections for the tragedies in this world and do what we can to help, true. But we should feed our familes, and our church families as well. For our wealth is not our own. We cannot be responsble for the global storm. We must act locally, where we can be effective, and keep such actions… local. For to apply what works in Dunedin to Auckland, let alone another country, is hubris.

Labour in NZ is expelling cheaters.

Posted on by

Just found out who the Dunedin North Candidate is for the next election (Gollum is retiring). He is a local. He is respected. And it is a safe Labour seat.

However, there seems to be an ACORN type voter fraud infection in Labour. Let’s give credit where it is due: Labour will expel those who are corrupt.

The Labour Party will take action if any of its members were found to have been involved in a possible Auckland Super City voting scam involving the Papatoetoe ward, party president Andrew Little says.

Police are investigating, and search warrants have been executed at “properties of interest”, Detective Inspector Mark Gutry said yesterday.

The irregularities involved people outside of Auckland, but related to Papatoetoe in south Auckland.

The Registrar of Electors last week removed 306 enrolments after discovering people did not live at addresses stated on enrolment forms.

via Labour to ‘take action’ if members involved in voting scam – National – NZ Herald News.

A boot in your face, forever.

Posted on by

The Left, in the 1890s, had a hypothesis. That if a revolution occured, and those who were workers (the low, the proles) ran their own lives by means of a dictatorship of the proletariate (well, I guess that is Lenin, in 1905) then all will be well.

It failed.

Now the Left have abandoned the proletariat, and instead advocate identity politics. Which consists, simply of forcing us to approve their decisions, regardless of what they are.

America is not yet remotely comparable to Orwell’s England of 1984. We’re still a rich people…though Washington has impeded our ability to advance and prosper as we've historically done. We’re still largely free to speak our minds…though Washington, the Left, and the barons of the Main Stream Media are doing their best to make sure only their preferred messages are widely heard. We’re still permitted to vote out our current scoundrels and vote in a new set, every two years…but have you noticed how little things have changed these past few decades, no matter who's “in” and who's “out?” (And that’s before we address the effect of ever-expanding vote fraud and voter intimidation.)

No, not everyone who advocates for increasing federal activism, taxation, and regulation is a would-be tyrant. Some sincerely if naively believe that what they advocate would only be for the best. But their opinions are, to an increasing degree, handed out to them by others — and those others are predominantly persons of no morals, consumed by a great lust for power.

It’s time we ceased, once and for all, to attribute good intentions to our adversaries as a default condition of our discourse. As the old English order of chivalry, the Order of the Garter, inscribed as its motto: “Honi soit qui mal y pense:” “Shame upon him who thinks evil.” Those who can be led to understand better might be many, but they must not be credited with better intentions than they display by their deeds. Those who already understand perfectly well, and approve of the damage to freedom and prosperity wrought by Leftist policies, must get no shrift at all.

via Francis W. Porretto – Eternity Road.

I’d sugges that we should not permit those in power to shut us up. We should not permit them to ruin our businesses. For the elite rule only with our consent.

And it is time to take that consent back.

Outlook next year part 1.

Posted on by

I appreciate that Kate Ross (who works here) has had a year where keeping going has been hard. However, the screening that she mentions is (for most businesses, who cannot afford to have a huge HR department) a good reason to use her service

An example of this – last week we advertised a middle management role. We had 9000 views, 750 applicants read the advertisement and over 300 applied statistics from Seek. 300! We have numerous positions to fill and this is incredibly time consuming when 90 per cent of the applicants do not even meet the brief. When clients have a few roles to recruit they will approach an agency and ask for the “best price.” Fair enough, we all need to be flexible.

via Kate Ross: What have recruitment agencies learned from 2009? – page 2 – Business – NZ Herald News.

In health the problem is getting enough quality staff. It takes at least 14    years to train a spccailist. It takes at least 7 -10 years to train a nurse or social worker (I know their degrees take three years, but they need a lot of supervision for at least some years). Good people are hard to find. Hiring bad people is very very expensive both emotionally, financially and often not acceptable from a risk management point of view.

So, we have been recruiting in health. For empty jobs. However, the ceiling on these jobs is shrinking, as we are being asked to make even more cuts.

Kate sees some hope for next  year, based on what she is seeing happening over the last few months. This timing fits with a typical recession. The risk, however, is that the recession elsewhere will be prolonged and worsened by US and EU policies. As we rely on exports, the recovery elsewhere is as important (or more so) than our domestic situation.

How to be an opposition.

Posted on by

Hat tip to Power Line. THis is what leadership looks like. Gov. Pawlenty and the minority Republicans have stopped the Peronistas. Cold. Dead. For two years.

Today is the last day of the legislative session here in Minnesota. The action has been furious over the past couple of weeks, with the Democrats, who control both houses of the legislature, enacting a billion dollar tax increase along with spending bills that contain explosive increases.

Governor Tim Pawlenty has played the role of Horatius at the Bridge, and so far he is winning hands down. He vetoed the Democrats’ giant tax increase, and yesterday his veto was sustained in the House, with two Democrats joining all Republicans. Also, the Democrats made a grave tactical error by sending Pawlenty spending bills ready for his signature. But, with a constitutional requirement of a balanced budget and the Dems’ tax increase vetoed, cuts will have to be made. In the present posture, Minnesota law allows Pawlenty, in effect, to write the state’s budget for the next two years. He can use a combination of line item vetoes and “unallotment” to direct spending where he thinks it needs to go, while maintaining a balanced budget. The whole situation, which right now looks great for Republicans and for the people of Minnesota, is a testament to Pawlenty’s political skill and to the determination of a rock-solid Republican caucus in the House, under the leadership of Marty Seifert.

But the Democrats haven’t given up. The session lasts until midnight tonight, and they are likely to propose a different package of tax increases, seek further overrides, etc. Thus, at 5:30 this afternoon there will be a “Storm the Capitol” rally on the Capitol steps. The purpose is to oppose veto overrides, increased taxes, and last-minute deals that will result in wasteful spending. It also should be a victory party of sorts, as Minnesota conservatives have shown how much can be achieved, even against apparently daunting odds.

via Power Line – Hold the Line on Taxes and Spending.

This seems to show a couple of things. Firstly, most of the left are economically ignorant. They cannot see the results of history, for the progressive doctrine they espouse indicates that we should repeat what is a failed experiment. The US idea of separation of powers in part was designed to protect the republic from the populace voting bread, circuses and bankruptcy.

Now if the other 49 states will emulate this…

Trainwreck continues

Posted on by

The owner of theBuffalo Sabres pro football team. did the math.

And moved.

As I said yesterday, the US is a natural experiment that has proved, in the last decade, that Peronist economics does not work.

Politicians like to talk about incentives — for businesses to relocate, for example, or to get folks to buy local. After reviewing the new budget, I have identified the most compelling incentive of all: a major tax break immedi ately available to all New Yorkers. To be eligible, you need do only one thing: move out of New York state.

Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple of simple things — registering to vote, changing my driver’s license, filling out a domicile certificate and signing a homestead certificate — in Florida. Combined with spending 184 days a year outside New York, these simple procedures will save me over $5 million in New York taxes annually.

By moving to Florida, I can spend that $5 million on worthy causes, like better hospitals, improving education or the Clinton Global Initiative. Or maybe I’ll continue to invest it in fighting the status quo in Albany. One thing’s certain: That money won’t continue to fund Albany’s bloated bureaucracy, corrupt politicians and regular special-interest handouts.

via ADIOS, NEW YORK – New York Post.

The scientific method in action.

Posted on by

California has been run by Peronists for a while. The government works for the unions and the legislators. There is an effluvium of populism and sloganeering.

However, the budget is bloated. Taxes are soooo high that firms and people are leaving. This demonstrates,  almost perfectly, that tax and spend policies are economically disastrous.

It is a perfect experiment: 300 people who can move through 50 states with no restrictions: firms that can also move in a similar manner. The consequence is that Calif. is going to tank. Or be rescued, which will mean that the federal government will have more toxic debt that it can swallow.

I agree with Megan McArdle…

So what about California? A reader asks. Ummm, that’s a tough one. No, wait, it’s not: California is completely, totally, irreparably hosed. And not a little garden hose. More like this. Their outflow is bigger than their inflow. You can blame Republicans who won’t pass a budget, or Democrats who spend every single cent of tax money that comes in during the booms, borrow some more, and then act all surprised when revenues, in a totally unprecedented, inexplicable, and unforeseaable chain of events, fall during a recession. You can blame the initiative process, and the uneducated voters who try to vote themselves rich by picking their own pockets. Whoever is to blame, the state was bound to go broke one day, and hey, today’s that day!

There is a surprisingly sizeable blogger contingent arguing that we have to bail them out because however regrettable the events that lead here, we now have no choice. But actually, we do have a choice: we could let them go bankrupt. And we probably should.

I am not under the illusion that this will be fun. For starters, the rest of you sitting smugly out there in your snug homes, preparing to enjoy the spectacle, should prepare to enjoy the higher taxes you’re going to pay as a result. Your states and municipalities will pay higher interest on their bonds if California is allowed to default. Also, the default is going to result in a great deal of personal misery, more than a little of which is going to end up on the books of Federal unemployment insurance and other such programs.

Then there are the actual people involved. Whatever you think of, say, children who decided to be born poor, right now they are dependent on government programs, and will be put in danger if those programs are interrupted.

On the other hand, I don’t really see another way out of it. If Uncle Sugar bails out California, California will not fix its problems

via Is California Too Big to Fail? – Megan McArdle.

But there is one fly in the ointment. The Obamaborg owes Pelosi. Pelosi was infected with Peronism a long, long time ago. This could be the beginning of the USA slide towards being, like Argentina, a banana republic.