The History of the World (Part Five)

So, having managed to reach the year 1776 in spite of hundreds of thousands of years primarily devoted to killing each other while avoiding being killed by the somewhat bloodthirsty Mother Nature, two really cool things happened. The American experiment was launched (see parts three and four) and Mr. Smith published a book.

Adam Smith was, and is, a well-regarded absent minded professor type with a first rate mind. He gave up his day job, as a popular professor at Glasgow university in 1764, to tutor and travel with a young Scottish nobleman (road trip!). They spent a couple of years touring continental Europe and met several leading thinkers of the day (such as Benjamin Franklin) and Mr. Smith was given a life pension by the grateful nobleman that enabled him to spend the next ten years or so working on his magnum opus, “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.”

In other words, he set out to discover the best policies a given nation should pursue so that everyone could make a buck. The answer, as summed up by P.J. O’Rourke is, “Economic progress depends upon a trinity of individual prerogatives: pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade.”

Warning: do not try and read The Wealth of Nations unless you enjoy the writing style of 18th-century century academics (I’m thinking this is a relatively small group of folks), and, you’re much smarter and more patient than I am (I’m thinking this is a relatively large group of folks). The commas and semicolons seemingly reproduce themselves as you try and decipher the text. Find a commentator or two that you trust to render Mr. Smith’s ideas into modern English.

In Mr. Smith’s defense, it ain’t easy to invent a field of study, particularly a field like modern economics. Also, I must warn any kneejerk anti-capitalists (a group that included me when I was a callowyute) that beating up on Mr. Smith because you think he was just another greed head will  make you look goofy as he’s well known for his belief that accumulating wealth and material goods won’t make you happy.

Before inventing modern economics, his thing was exploring morality and ethics, figuring out how we should treat each other, how we could all get along. He wrote a book entitled The Theory of Moral Sentiments that is still highly regarded. Incidentally, both it and The Wealth of Nations were best sellers in their day and almost immediately literally changed the world.  

He just wanted to figure out what the optimal system was for a free people to attain whatever level of economic security they thought was necessary and appropriate to keep the wolf from the door. He warned the world about crony capitalism. Although he was financially quite successful, he quietly and discreetly gave away most of his money and lived simply. I highly recommend P.J. O’Rourke’s, “On The Wealth of Nations.” Mr. O’Rourke is not an economist, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but that’s a whole different essay. He is, however, very smart, very funny, and lives in the real world.

“Economic progress depends upon a trinity of individual prerogatives: pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade,” says O’Rourke, stating the fundamentals of Smith’s thought.  That’s it? That’s all it takes for a country to be prosperous?  Everdamnbody? Yup. Well, more or less. The rule of law is also essential component if you think that it’s important that everdamnbody should have to play by the same rules and bullies should be spanked.  

Disclaimer: I’m an unrepentant wild-eyed free marketeer, a UWFM, here, have a bumper sticker. I don’t care for the word capitalist because of the tendency of well-meaning, progressives, socialists and communists to frequently use it as an epithet. Also, I describe myself as a sorta/kinda or bleeding heart libertarian, primarily because I’m all for a rationally designed safety net and many libertarians think that’s wrong-headed or impossible.

Aside: Communism, in spite of its adherents claim that it would work if ever done properly, is an obvious dead end, often literally. Socialism is a great idea, all we have to do is change human nature first and lock up all the screwballs like me that are obsessed with personal freedom. Progressivism and/or democratic socialism, or how to have your cake and eat it tooism, is the current flavor of the month for the utopianists of the world. Many people want the benefits of a free market combined with a big, juicy welfare state with millions of rules and millions of unionized bureaucrats, but someone else, preferably the evil rich, should pay the high taxes needed to fund  the necessities of life, such as Obamaphones for example. More on the resulting mess later.

Back to Adam Smith. Smith’s work contradicted a widely held belief of his time, mercantilism. This is the belief that a nation’s wealth is determined by how much gold, silver, cash, ginormous televisions etc. it can accumulate, after all,  there’s only so much wealth to go around. Therefore, you should export for the cash and block, or at least penalize, imports. This view of the world, that currently is enjoying a comeback, leads otherwise clear thinking people to believe in the Boarding House Pie Fallacy.  

Say you're living in a boarding house. It’s dinner time and Mrs. McGillicuddy is serving up her famous apple pie for dessert. Since there’s only so much pie to go around, and fat Frank is at the table, it behooves everyone to employ a strategery that will ensure an equitable portion of pie. Mr. Smith’s insight (not to be confused with Mrs. Smith's pies), and he’s not alone, was that boarding house wisdom has limited applicability. There’s an easier and more effective way to get what you want that has the added benefit of not having to impose high tariffs (which begat high prices) and over-regulate anyone -- the pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade. Skilfully employed these three ensure that everyone can have their own pie. To be continued...

Have an OK Day.

©2016 Mark Mehlmauer 

Gentlereaders, my Tuesday and Thursday mini-posts are about to disappear, at least for the time being. It looks like I'm going to need to have a new knee installed and before I do I'm going to be meeting all sorts of medical specialists. Turns out that if you're a man who is technically over 50 you're supposed to have various medical shtuff done on a regular basis. Who knew?

Having not seen a doctor since the late 80s (for a CDL physical... it's complicated) I'm running a bit behind and have all sorts of i dotting and t crossing to do (tests and appointments) before I can get myself a shiny new knee. 

So -- to make things easier, not miss any mini-post postings, and most importantly, to make sure I don't miss publishing my beloved (by me anyway) weekly column (dude, it's what I do!) -- mini-posts are outta here.   

The Pussy Bow Incident

I've been at this for awhile now, this blogging thing. I've been cranking out weekly columns for well over a year and now I'm playing around with a mini-post concept. While I'm not a great writer, I think I'm decent. Not the same old same old anyway. I'm aware that 90% of wannabe writers will never be published by someone other than themselves. I'm aware that 90% of published writers will never quit their day job. I'm aware that I picked those percentages out of the air, so don't go a-googling in search of veracity. They're covered under the terms of my creative license.

That said, although I realize that making enough money from my work to impact the lives of me and the Stickies, of ever being more than a hobbyist, is highly unlikely, I still dream about getting lucky, and I keep trying.

However, I've just been rudely reminded that if my judgment was better, if I picked the right topics to write about, and when, if I were more culturally aware, I might be wildly successful by now. See, I thought writing about the pussy bow incident, but I passed, and now the world has moved on.


In case you missed it, Melania Trump wore a shirt/blouse/top (?) decorated with what amounts to a huge floppy bow tie to the second presidential debate that I now know is called a pussy bow. My exhaustive research reveals that it was considered cool at one time to tie bows around the necks of cats. This phenomenon was the inspiration for the unfortunately named shirt/blouse/top (?) known as a pussy    bow. I was unable to discover if the obvious loss of dignity to any felines thus abused in this manner was noted or recorded.

At some point, some-one, started hanging them around the necks of women and they've been going in and out of style ever since. I confess, that although I've successfully managed to achieve the age of 39 on 24 successive occasions, I was completely unaware of any of this until recently.

And then -- Melania Trump showed up for the second presidential cat fight debate wearing a fuchsia (I had to look that up too) pussy bow shirt/blouse/top (?) and this kicked off a kerfuffle, that I thought  was goofy. The kerfuffle in question, generated a brief (thankfully) burst of tweets, comments, articles, postings, etc. Was she subtly supporting the Donald? or was it a passive-aggressive condemnation of his "locker room talk"?

Which is why -- I saw an opportunity to make fun of the whole goofy incident. But I passed and it faded away quickly. I refer to the fuss about the unfortunately named shirt/blouse/top (?), not the fuss about the Donald's choice of words, which the Hilliam will make sure never goes away -- but I was wrong.

See, a few days after the second debate, Maureen Dowd, a...

Oh, wait! before I forget (this will just take a sec'), since the Donald claims that the Hilliam is the tip of the spear of a vast conspiracy by the media, The Gubmint in general, the FBI and the Justice Department in particular (and other conspirators to be named later) and not just the result of a fame and money loving, agendicized, infotainment manufacturing media monster and formerly (more or less)  respected and independent, The Gubmint, agencies that have been politicized by King (I've got a phone and I've got a pen) Barry  -- deep breath -- am I the only one that thinks this is a vast left-wing conspiracy that was set into motion by the Hilliam when they unearthed the vast right-wing conspiracy that had placed Monica Lewinsky in the White House in order to trick Slick Willie into using her as a humidor?

[Insert sound of the loudest gym teacher's whistle you've ever heard, here.

Wait just a minute Sparky! Sez Dana, my imaginary gentlereader, grinning from ear to ear. While Marie-Louise (my muse) and I both love the paragraph long sentence (ML, a woman of few words, is smiling, nodding, and scratching my back), is this train going anywhere or have you taken the wrong spur?]

Oh, sorry -- yes, definitely. OK, so, Maureen Dowd (or MoDo), in case you don't know, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist who writes a weekly column for The New York Times. Remind you of anyone? Except for the facts that she writes for the NYT, leans decidedly to the left, knows The Donald personally, hangs with the elites of Manhattan and D.C. and won a Pulitzer for writing about the Hilliam a thousand years ago when they became world famous child abusers -- we're very much alike.

See, she doesn't care much for the Donald or the Hilliam either, and her writing style is not the same old same old, for which she's often criticized by important people, as I hope to someday be.

And, whereas, I ignored the Pussy Bow Incident, she wrote an entire (sort of) column (1) about it in addition to her weekly one. I say sort of because it was chock full of mindless tweet quotes -- rather like something you'd find in a USA Today online article. I normally enjoy reading her stuff but I find myself turning, more and more, into an anti- tweeter. In fact, I'm thinking about starting a movement to oppose the pervasive spread of this cultural malignancy. I'm formulating a plan to...

Insert sound of the loudest gym teacher's whistle you've ever heard, here.

Sorry. Well, there you have it. A clear explanation as to why MoDo is a well connected, Pulitzer Prize-winning, Manhattan dwelling, New York Times supported writer and I'm a blogger limping along in Flyoverland.

I was feeling sort of depressed about my situation, but then I read an article (2) in USA Today online the day after the most recent debate that explained why the Hilliam wore white that night that included the line, "It's also been suggested that suffragettes wore white because its connotations of virginal purity helped shield them from the accusations of sexual immorality that were often hurled at them from the movement's opponents." The Hilliam and virginal purity mentioned in the same article.

I'm still grinnin', you can't make this shtuff up folks!

And then I stumbled on an article (3) from The Hill that was written the day before the last debate that reported that Madonna, who apparently has been reduced to being an opening act, pledged to perform oral sex on men if they vote for The Hilliam.

I'm feeling much better now, and I do believe I shall remain in Flyoverland.

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016

(1) MoDoCo(lumn) 
(2) USA Today
(3) Madonna

      

The History of the World, Vol. 4

The invention of the USA: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  

Or...

The natural state of man, excuse me, the natural state of male and female H. sapiens, is that though we’re all unique in how we look, how smart we are, and what innate talents we have, nobody is born automatically better than anyone else. We are entitled to live as long as biology and fate permit, we’re free to pursue our own path and discover what it is that will keep getting us out of bed in the morning until we can’t (or won’t) get out of bed in the morning. I maintain that this is obvious (self-evident) to any more or less well-adjusted kid on the playground. I also maintain that this is obvious to any emotionally healthy, clear thinking grownup. I maintain that any well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) king, cleric, or bully (even politically correct bullies) that maintains otherwise is delusional and needs to be dealt with appropriately.

Obvious?

Yup. Well, sorta/kinda. It’s obvious to those of us that have grown up fortunate enough to take the concept for granted. The, um, traditional way was the way of the alpha male. A method of social organization still in vogue in more than a few places. We’re hard-wired to function that way and when the excrement hits the air conditioning we’re often rudely reminded of that fact.    

We have two choices. The traditional way -- the way of the alpha male, the way of the bully, the way of the king, the way of the high priest -- or the way of the (at least superficially) rational person. Rational people employ reason. Wikipedia: “Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions and beliefs based on new or existing information.”  

And yes, I used the word superficially. Rationality is a buggy, crash-prone app still in beta testing. For the dead white males that invented the USA, fortunately for us, reason was a thing, a very big thing. We got lucky. They were the 1% of their day, but back in their particular day, something that came to be called the Age of Enlightenment was rockin’ the world. A new meme was going around.

If you decided that the traditional way of doing things only worked well for a very small group of people and you could rewrite the rules, using reason, to set up a new system that benefited everyone equally (at least in theory), what would you do?

What they did, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, was set up the USA. The wailing and gnashing continued, and continues, as it should in a democracy. Fortunately, the new system includes built-in mechanisms to fix and/or change what the people decide needs fixed and/or changed. It ain’t easy to change, and it shouldn’t be, considering how thin the veneer of rationality is.            

Emotionally healthy, clear thinking grownups realize they’re not the only kid on the playground and that just enough rules are necessary to ensure everyone has fun but has to share the equipment and that bullies are not allowed. This is called government and it requires that a few conditions be met in order that the people remain as free as realistically possible. First, we the governed, get to decide what the rules are. Second, the rules should be as few in number as possible so that individuals remain as free as possible.Third, great care must be taken to avoid the potentially huge, honking, downside of democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

If a majority of the kids on the playground get together to ban little Timmy from the premises just because of his unfortunate tendency to pick his nose, even  though he’s not breaking any rules, a grownup (the rule of law) must step in to protect not only Timmy’s right to be there but also make sure he isn’t bullied. This is the why and what of the U.S. constitution. It’s called the American experiment because no one else in history had managed to pull off anything quite like it and many thought we wouldn’t either. Some still don’t, and there’s no guarantee that it will ultimately end well.

Now, just because we’re lucky enough to have been born into the species that sits at the top of the food chain, in the most prosperous nation the world has seen (so far at least) we still live in a dangerous, hostile world that guarantees nothing but our eventual death. It’s up to us to come up with food, clothing, and shelter and defend ourselves from those that want to kill us for fun and/or profit.

I once heard a nurse that was the head of some organization or another declaring with passion and conviction that, “Healthcare is a right!” in a radio interview.

No, it’s not.

Life, freedom, and the pursuit of whatever it is that keeps us getting out of bed are the fundamental rights everyone obviously should get. But even these natural, fundamental rights are a reality, not just a potential reality, only for those fortunate enough to be born into a culture that acknowledges and defends them. You may have noticed there’s no shortage of thugs that look at things a bit differently. Everything else that you think you’re entitled to depends on what you and/or your fellow citizens are prepared to work your bums off for. If you don’t believe this, try performing the following experiment.

Have yourself stranded on a desert island without a crew from a reality television show. Raise your fist to the sky and DEMAND! food, clothing, shelter (and healthcare), then wait and see what happens. Oh, and make sure you don’t let your situational awareness chops get rusty while you’re waiting because mother nature is notoriously oblivious to our rights. Like any good mom, if she has a favorite, she’s keeping it to herself, and, she doesn’t seem to lose any sleep when her kids eat each other to stay alive.

Oh, and please note that you don’t even have to ask nicely for life (however temporary), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Self-evidently, unless Gilligan and company show up and turn out to be evil, drug-addled crazies (which would explain a lot), you’re about as free as you can be within the physical limitations of life on Earth. And unless one or more  of the zany castaways has brought a trunk full of meth, you could stay as free as possible (all things considered) simply by agreeing respect each others unalienable rights. Next, on to the original Mr. Smith.

Have an OK day.

©2016 Mark Mehlmauer


If you wish to like, react, leave a comment, share, etc. -- please scroll down.