Ludwig von Mises Tells Cher To Suck Wind

Yesterday, Cher wrote this:

If ROMNEY gets elected I don't know if i can breathe same air as Him & his Right Wing Racist Homophobic Women Hating Tea Bagger Masters

And this:

TOO HARSH ? Thats me Holding BACK! They care nothing about the POOR The OLD The SICK
The HUNGRY CHILDREN & People striving 4 a Better LIFE !—

Today, she wrote this:

Sorry 4 bringing Wrath of Kahn Lovelies!Feelings r 1 thing but no right 2 let mean spirit run free! Anger in heart made me turn back on Luv

And this:

Oh babe where ya been? Went Full Rush! Was on Cher Tear ! RT @DoctorSwill @cher Oh no...what has your mouth done now? :)~

Fifty-six years ago, Ludwig von Mises wrote this:

The many to whom capitalism gave a comfortable income and leisure are yearning for entertainment. Crowds throng to the theatres. There is money in show business. Popular actors and playwrights...live in palatial houses with butlers and swimming pools. ...Yet Hollywood and Broadway, the world-famous centers of the entertain­ment industry, are hotbeds of communism. Authors and performers are to be found among the most bigoted supporters of Sovietism...

...Under capitalism, material success depends on the apprecia­tion of a man’s achievements on the part of the sovereign con­sumers. In this regard there is no difference between the services rendered by a manufacturer and those rendered by a producer, an actor or a playwright. Yet the awareness of this dependence makes those in show business much more uneasy than those supplying the customers with tangible amenities...

...People long for amusement because they are bored. And nothing makes them so weary as amusements with which they are already familiar. The essence of the entertainment industry is variety. The patrons applaud most what is new and therefore unexpected and surpris­ing. They are capricious and unaccountable. They disdain what they cherished yesterday. A tycoon of the stage or the screen must always fear the waywardness of the public. He awakes rich and famous one morning and may be forgotten the next day. He knows very well that he depends entirely on the whims and fan­cies of a crowd hankering after merriment. He is always agitated by anxiety. Like the master-builder in Ibsen’s play, he fears the unknown newcomers, the vigorous youths who will supplant him in the favor of the public.

It is obvious that there is no relief from what makes these stage people uneasy...Communism, some of them think, will bring their deliverance. Is it not a sys­tem that makes all people happy?...

...It may be fairly assumed that none of the Hollywood and Broadway communists has ever studied the writings of any so­cialist author and still less any serious analysis of the market economy. But it is this very fact that, to these glamour girls, dancers and singers, to these authors and producers of comedies, moving pictures and songs, gives the strange illusion that their particular grievances will disappear as soon as the “expropriators” will be expropriated...

...But it is noteworthy to remember that no other American milieu was more enthusiastic in the endorsement of communism than that of people cooperat­ing in the production of these silly plays and films.

I appreciate Ludwig von Mises' cogent analysis of the "glamour girl" mindset. Yet, I tend to believe there is another, simpler explanation of why rich celebrities endorse socialism and yearn for the federal parasites in Washington to raise taxes on the wealthy and redistribute the seized spoils to the "Poor" and the "Old" and the "Sick" and to the "Hungry children." That explanation is GUILT and ENVY.

Many of these babied, wealthy, Hollywood "has beens" look back on their life and wonder "Why me?" Why am I so fortunate, so privileged, so rich? Yes, I've worked hard, but I truly enjoyed every second. I would do it again in a heartbeat. Wealth and celebrity came easy to me. Wealth and celebrity are a matter of luck.

Yes! That's it! I was simply lucky! Other poor slobs are not so lucky. Therefore, the lucky must contribute a portion of their wealth to the unlucky! It's just common sense!!

Of course, I could voluntarily contribute to the unlucky common people through private charities -- and I do. But that's just me! What about other lucky bastards like me who are even more rich than me but who are ignorant or selfish? These lucky, ignorant and selfish rich individuals must be forced by the central authorities in Washington to contribute a portion of their wealth to the unlucky too! It is only fair!

Besides, I'm not saying that we rich, lucky bastards have to give everything we have to the unlucky masses. If we all gave a little, we could still enjoy the lifestyle we've earned by all of our hard work and the unlucky ones would benefit.

The rich, lucky Republican bastards, like those selfish, evil Koch brothers are the worst. I hate them!! They are the richest of the rich, the luckiest of the lucky! Yet they show no compassion, no heart whatsoever! Anyway, why should the Koch brothers be allowed to be richer than me? Did they work harder than me for what they have? Are they better persons? Do they have a bigger heart? Are they more loving?

Not!!!

So make them pay!!!!

What this poor, pathetic, conflicted soul does not understand, and what Mises points out, is that the production of wealth is not independent of the means by which it is distributed. Her simple-minded advocacy of socialism may soothe her feelings of guilt and envy, but it inevitably makes us all poorer by destroying the very thing that allowed Cher to produce her wealth in the first place: private property and the freedom to pursue it and accumulate it for herself.

The "Free Market" R Us!

Yesterday Bird Dog over at Maggie's Farm posted a link to JR Nyquist's cogent article, "Saving the Free Market," which references Ludwig von Mises' book: "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality." I've discussed this brilliant book here on several occasions.

Mises spent a lifetime studying, explaining, defending and advocating something called the "free market." I often wonder if the man on the street really understands the concept.

Bird Dog's post pulls the following quote out of Nyquist's article:

According to Mises, “The profit system [of the free market] makes those men prosper who have succeeded in filling the wants of the people in the best possible and cheapest way.” The free market is a daily plebiscite, he explained, in which “every penny gives a right to vote … who should own and run the plants, shops and farms.” Rather than giving everyone an equal share in running the economy, the free market places in charge those best able to provide for the many. In this arrangement, everyone must produce. Everyone buys and sells. “This is what the modern concept of freedom means,” noted Mises. “Every adult is free to fashion his life according to his own plans.

This quote, of course, accurately describes the workings of the free market, but it really doesn't say what the free market is. Some would read the paragraph above and be filled with cynicism and horror. They might argue:

"The profit system" is rigged in favor of the 1%, the big, wealthy corporations that create our consumer society. The rich and powerful corporations fill the airwaves with advertisements that make people want to buy stuff they don't need. Then they exploit our cheap labor to build the stuff. Then they sell it back to us in big, corporate, box stores at exorbitant prices we can't afford.

We might be able to vote with our "every penny" on who runs things, but the fat cats are voting with dollars not pennies. They always win. A rich man may be able to "fashion his life according to his own plans," but the poor man is trapped. Markets may be "free," but they are definitely unfair.

To understand what the free market really is we must cast aside the rhetoric and the economic jargon. Forget words like profit, loss, supply and demand. Forget the big concepts like the economy and the market place. Ask yourself some basic questions instead, like:

Is the money I earn mine?

Most Americans would answer, of course, it is mine. Whose else would it be? Well, it might be the landlord's. He takes a huge chunk of it every month. Or the grocer's. Or the shoe store owner's. Or Uncle Sam's. He takes his share before you ever see your paycheck.

Upon reflection, it should be easy to see that some of these individuals don't really take your money. You voluntarily give it to them in exchange for things you need and want. If you don't like the things they give you in exchange for your money, you can change trading partners, i.e., rent from a different landlord, buy from a different grocer or patronize another shoe store. However, your relationship with Uncle Sam is a bit different.

Uncle Sam confiscates his share of your paycheck without asking and gives you in return...well, what does Uncle Sam give you in return? Roads? Police services? Fire services? Schools? Not really. These things are given to you in return for your taxes by local cities and towns. What do you get in return for the tax money you send Uncle Sam in Washington, DC?

While you're thinking about that, ask yourself what your options are if you're dissatisfied with the things you're getting back from Uncle Sam. You can't buy military protection from another Uncle. You can't mail your first class letters from another Post Office. You can't patronize another Medicare store or Social Security office.

The truth is where Uncle Sam is concerned you have no choice in the matter. You're stuck with the stuff your parasitic Uncle wants to give you in return for money he takes without asking.

So I ask again: Is the money you earn really yours?

It should be obvious that the answer is no, at least not the part confiscated and used by Uncle Sam.

The next question to consider is: Which do you prefer? Owning and controlling your own money? Or having it confiscated by someone else who may or may not give you something you want or need in return?

Most people are most satisfied owning and controlling their own money. They are most comfortable making their own decisions about what to buy and from whom to buy it.

Of course it's not an either-or proposition. Obviously, the United States swings both ways. On the one hand, you send a big chunk of money to anonymous bureaucrats in Washington DC who do with it as they please. On the other hand, you get to own and control what's left.

But, then again, it's not really that simple. Because the more powerful these anonymous bureaucrats become the more rules and regulations they pass, rules and regulations that tell you under penalty of the law how you can or cannot spend the portion of your money you got to keep for yourself.

If the portion of your money you own and control is actually controlled by Washington rules and regulations, who really owns your money? The answer should be obvious. You don't. Uncle Sam does.

So what is a free market? It's not Uncle Sam and his faceless minions doing what they want with money they've confiscated from you. It's YOU, doing what YOU want with money YOU earned -- with absolutely no interference from Uncle Sam. 

Now I've got another question for you: How large is the free market in the United States? That is, how large (or small) is that portion of the money you earned that Uncle Sam let's you keep and that you get to spend exactly as you want to spend it without interference from Uncle Sam?

50%? 40%? 20%? I can't tell you. You have to tell me. Maybe a quick check of your federal, state and local income and property tax returns will help you decide. If you're a numbers person, maybe the graph below will help. Of course the graph only shows the growth in the portion of your money Uncle Sam controls. It doesn't show the portion of your money your state, county, and local politicians control. But you get the point.

As the graph shows, the size of the free market in the United States has been dwindling drastically over the years. At the turn of the century individuals in America got to own and control over 90% of the wealth they produced. They got to spend that wealth on themselves and their families exactly how they wanted and with whom they wanted. Uncle Sam owned and controlled less than 10% of the wealth they produced.

Today Uncle Sam owns 40% of the wealth individual Americans produce, and he controls considerably more. After the new Affordable Health Care for America Act (ObamaCare) fully kicks in, and local, county and state controlled wealth is added, Uncle Sam and company will control well over half of all the wealth produced by individuals in these United States. The free market -- in other words, YOU -- will own and control what's left, maybe 40%! The trend is clear. The free market in this country is going, going, gone.

The very saddest part of this story is the ending. Many, many individuals in this country are pleased to see the free market disappear. They do not want to be part of a free market. They want Uncle Sam in all his reincarnations to spend their hard-earned money for them. These naive and trusting souls apparently believe that politicians are more responsible, more honest, more hard working, more productive and more caring than they themselves are providing for themselves in a free market.
  
I don't believe it for an instant. Do you?

No Compromise

In this article at Political Realities Michael Fields argues that "progress" could be made in Washington if only Republicans would compromise with Democrats on the issue of increasing taxes on the "wealthy."

Compromise between Republicans and Democrats in the federal government always has the effect of moving government policy leftward. Why? Because Democrats always act to satisfy their base which is left and growing far left. The Republican base is center right, so any compromise winds up going left by increments.

Moreover, how do you compromise with The Anti-capitalistic Mentality? Republicans have been doing so for more than a hundred years and look where it’s got us. In his book, The Anti-capitalistic Mentality, Ludwig von Mises writes:

“All those rejecting capitalism on moral grounds as an unfair system are deluded by their failure to comprehend what capital is, how it comes into existence and how it is maintained, and what the benefits are which are derived from its employment in production processes.”

Compromise is good when both parties are aiming at the same goal. Compromise is bad when one party opposes capitalism on moral grounds and aims to destroy it.

The time for solving our American fiscal and monetary crisis by tweaking the edges of the tax system has come and gone. Fields writes: “How do we make progress when both sides have taken such strict positions?”

The implication is that "progress" toward a more capitalistic system is possible by compromise. It isn’t. Even a good share of the Republican negotiators are of the anti-capitalistic mentality.

Fields asks incredulously: “Conservatives wouldn’t accept a $500 billion tax increase combining higher rates on the wealthy and the elimination of tax disparities if it was accompanied by $5 trillion in spending cuts where the timing of both were well matched?”

I wouldn’t. To believe the Democrats would actually cut (and I mean REALLY cut) federal spending by $5-trillion is fantastically naïve. Why? Because Democrats are rabidly anti-capitalistic and Republicans are only moderately less so. Until that mentality changes, there is no hope in compromise.

Now is the time for those of us who are of the capitalistic mentality to take a strict position and stand firm: No new taxes.