Tag: You Can’t Cure Stupid

Obama Doesn’t Get Economics

I know you read the title of this post and thought to yourself “no shit Sherlock.” Well it’s worse than we thought because it seems Obama believes automation which increases productivity and frees up labor for other areas is actually the cause of unemployment:

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

I think Obama desperately needs to read some Hazlitt, namely Economics in One Lesson [PDF] which can be found freely available at this link. Specifically Obama needs to read chapter 7, The Curse of Machinery:

After the machine has produced economies sufficient to offset its cost, the clothing manufacturer has more profits than before. (We shall assume that he merely sells his coats for the same price as his competitors, and makes no effort to undersell them.) At this point, it may seem, labor has suffered a net loss of employment, while it is only the manufacturer, the capitalist, who has gained. But it is precisely out of these extra profits that the subsequent social gains must come. The manufacturer must use these extra profits in at least one of three ways, and possibly he will use part of them in all three: (1) he will use the extra profits to expand his operations by buying more machines to make more coats; or (2) he will invest the extra profits in some other industry; or (3) he will spend the extra profits on increasing his own consumption. Whichever of these three courses he takes, he will increase employment.

In other words, the manufacturer, as a result of his economies, has profits that he did not have before. Every dollar of the amount he has saved in direct wages to former coat makers, he now has to pay out in indirect wages to the makers of the new machine, or to the workers in another capital industry, or to the makers of a new house or motor car for himself, or of jewelry and furs for his wife. In any case (unless he is a pointless hoarder) he gives indirectly as many jobs as he ceased to give directly.

Claiming that machines cause unemployment does nothing besides demonstrate ignorance in economics. People that blame machines for unemployment doesn’t stop to think about who builds those machines, who maintains them, who manufactures more raw materials to handle the increase in consumption due to ability to produce more, etc. Basically those who believe automation is the enemy of employment are unable to see the whole picture and instead only concern themselves with the part they’re looking at right then and there.

If automation were the enemy of employment then a large portion of the population should have remained unemployed after the Industrial Revolution where automation took over a huge amount of work previously performed manually by people.

Three Senators Lying In The Hopes of Enacting Gun Control Legislation

As the anti-gunners lack facts to back their arguments it’s no surprise that they resort to outright lying in order to push their agenda of taking away our right to self-defense. One of the lies that have been propagated in the last year is that the majority of firearms obtained by Mexican drug cartels comes from the United States. Although this bullshit has been proven false the anti-gunners still parrot it because they have nothing else to work with.

Combine the fact that only a small portion of firearms recovered in Mexico actually trace back to the United States with the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have been caught smuggling guns into Mexico for the drug cartels and we have the truth story; many guns recovered in Mexico that trace back to the United States were likely allowed to cross the border by government officials. This hasn’t stopped the usual suspects from going ahead and claiming once again that we need to ban semi-automatic rifles that look scary to anti-gunners in order to help the Mexican government:

“This report confirms what many of us already know to be true. … It is still too easy for Mexican drug lords to get their hands on deadly military-grade weapons within our borders,” said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. “We need to redouble our efforts to keep violent firearms out of the hands of these traffickers.”

The senators, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, are calling for reinstatement of an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and better enforcement of a ban on the import of military style weapons.

I have a better idea that may help reduce the number of guns that cross the border from the United States into Mexico; stop letting the ATF smuggling guns into that country. Furthermore you guys could work on ending the drug war here in the United States which would effectively behead the Mexican drug cartels as the price of these drugs would plummet. This is what Portugal did and it worked out pretty well for them.

A Blueprint for Not Getting Elected

Do you want to run for Congress but ensure you don’t get elected? If that’s you then Mike Barkley is the man for you to emulate because he’s ensured that he’ll never get elected:

Now the Manteca resident is seeking the Democratic nomination for Congress with his primary campaign platform being the repeal of the Second Amendment and any pre-existing doctrine of natural law, common-law or laws under state constitutions that allow the right to keep and bear arm.

Barkley, though, has no qualms with individuals exercising the privilege to possess weapons to protect themsleves. To address that he’s proposing a constitutional amendment that would impose an annual tax on every firearm in a household. Taxes would start at $10 for the first firearm, $20 for the second firearm, $30 for the third firearm, $100 each for the fourth through ninth firearms and $1,000 each for any firearm in excess of nine.

Granted he’s running for California which is one of the only states where a person with such a position could possibly get elected but even there I doubt such a candidate would get elected (Californians please don’t take this as a challenge, I don’t need to have yet another reason to hate politics in your state). But repealing the second amendment and taxing the ever living shit out of gun owners isn’t the only stupid thing Mr. Barkley is recommending:

And under his proposed amendment should a firearm be lost or stolen it would result in a $1,000 penalty with the penalty rescinded or refunded if the firearm is recovered. But there’s a big caveat to that: If the firearm is used in the commission of a felony then an additional $1,000 penalty will be imposed.

Isn’t that a great position to have? First you turn the victim of a crime into a criminal by fining a victim of theft for the actions of the thief and then fine the victim again if the criminal performs another crime with the stolen gun. Hell with rock solid logic like that we’ll be looking to fine car owners if their vehicle gets stolen next.

Honestly with positions like this I don’t see Mr. Berkley has a legitimate candidate for Congress but I found these ideas stupid enough to be funny and thus worth posting about here. This is the kind of crazy shit anti-gunners come up with. They have such a hatred and/or fear of a mechanical device that they wish to punish everybody who owns one. Not only are they willing to take away our right to defend ourselves but they also want to turn victims of crimes into criminals.

It’s absolutely sickening to me that somebody would advocate punishing a victim of a crime. What’s next? Are we to fine people $1,000 because they were mugged? Should be fine the family members of murder victims? How far would such stupidity have to be carried before anti-gunners realized the idiocy of their concept?

Either way have fun not getting elected Mr. Berkley. Oh and your personal website (linked to in the article as I won’t link to that crap here) is shittier than mine which isn’t easy to pull off considering my lack of web design capabilities.

Joyce Foundation Bribing Journalist to Write Anti-Gun Studies

The Joyce Foundation, the same assholes who bankroll the Brady Campaign, are pretty well known in the pro-rights community for providing funding to almost anybody who will push their anti-rights agenda. The Buckeye Firearms Association has a nice writeup about the Joyce Foundation using money to get journalists to write anti-gun stories.

I’m not one who subscribes to the idea that journalists should be unbiased but I do feel perfectly fine with pointing out potential reasons for bias. There is a huge incentive for a journalist to write anti-gun stories if a large foundation is willing to float them Federal Reserve notes for doing it. This tactic is often used to get desired results from studies; somebody gives a bunch of researchers money, express to those researchers the preferred bias, and then has them set out to get a study that proves that preferred bias. You can prove anything if you twist the numbers enough which is evident when anti-gunners reveals their numbers of people killed by guns each year but only mention in the very tiny print that a huge chunk of those deaths were suicides (which are self-inflicted deaths and therefore really can’t be counted when talking about gun violence).

Needless to say the Joyce Foundation has been throwing money at anybody willing to do research that shows a bias against guns so the findings in the linked article aren’t at all surprising.

Even Though Gun Sales are Up Violent Crime is Down

Although this will come as no surprise to those who advocate the right to keep and bear arms the following news will have anti-gunners plugging their hears and screaming “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) gun sales are up yet again in 2011 while the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has reported that violent crime dropped yet again. Once again the facts demonstrate no correlation between an increase rate of firearm ownership and an increase in the rate of violent crime.

Once against a favorite argument parroted by anti-gunners is proven to be completely wrong.

California Trying to Push Out More Businesses

Seriously are the legislators in California retarded? Don’t answer that, I already know the answer is yet. It just seems that at some point in California’s recent history the lawmakers there would have learned something. Apparently not as California’s economy is going down the tubes faster than an unwanted pregnancy on prom night and that doesn’t seem to be fast enough for their government. With rising unemployment and businesses fleeing the state the politicians in the Assembly just passed a law that would tax online retailers:

The state of California could collect more than $1 billion a year by taxing Amazon and other online retailers if a bill approved by the Assembly becomes law.

Of course this won’t bring in $1 billion a year as companies would have to stay in California to pay which they’re not going to do. Amazon has already left states that have attempted to extract tax dollars from them.

In order for this law to make money California is going to have to go full socialist and ban anybody from leaving the state without government approval. If California wants to make money they’re going to have to create a business friendly environment where companies can flourish instead of being trampled by the boots of government interference.

If you live in that forsaken state it would be wise to get out now before the prevent you from doing so.

Why Business Owners Love Government Required Licenses

One of the biggest protection scams in the business world is the requirement for government issued licenses to participate in a specific market. This was a very big things back in the days for taxicabs where the city would only issue a specified number of taxi licenses and thus restrict the size of the market. Taxicab owners loved it because it ensures they had little competition and as demand for taxi drivers crew competition became less and less relevant. Of course taxicabs are a great example but a bit boring but thankfully Salem, Massachusetts provides us with a far more entertaining example of this:

In 2007, the city lifted a cap on the number of psychics allowed to operate and now some believe the ‘Witch City’ is getting overrun.

That’s right Salem required a government issued license to perform “psychic” services within the city. This requirement was recently lifted though and some of the older “psychics” are a bit perturbed:

Barbara Szafranski is a long-time psychic license holder who conducts readings at her downtown shop Angelica of the Angels. She needed no crystal ball to tell her business would take a hit when more fortunetellers hit the scene.

“It affected me 75%. I lost business because many stores opened up that were not in this field. They just opened up because they wanted to get the money from the readings,” said Szafranski.

“It just becomes a bunch of gypsies. Maybe I shouldn’t say that word because they might be upset by it but those people are not necessarily always qualified.”

That 75% loss of business is due to the fact actual competition has moved into a market where government interference ensured little existed. Basically the market is telling Mrs. Szafranski that her price for stupid magically bullshit psychic services is too high and that her clients have found a cheaper provider elsewhere. I would also like to know what qualifications a psychic needs as apparently gypsies lack these qualifications (I’m betting it’s bloodline, you need to be a pure decedent of some promised people).

The reason business owners are in favor of these licensing requirements is because it protects their business and also ensures a high barrier for entry for new potential competitors. Most cities that impost licensing scams like this set a fixed number of available licenses and thus a prospective business owner needs to obtain a licenses from somebody currently in the business. As these licenses are quite rare (the limit is always set artificially low) the prices for a license skyrockets. Needless to say when a license cap such as this is lifted those who put the investment into getting their license want to see the cap returned as Mrs. Szafranski does:

“I’m in favor of putting the cap on because there are so many psychics in the city now. When I first opened up my business 25 years ago I was just about the only one in this area and, of course, as you’re seeing since then it’s grown and grown and grown,” said Szafranski.

Which translates into “I want the cap returned so I can charge my artificially high prices again.” Either way this is a great example of government licensing requirements being nothing more than protection scams.

I Don’t Think Freedom Means What You Think it Means

Miguel over at Gun Free Zone has been having a great time with the bullshit that the Coalition to Stop Self-Defense Gun Violence (CSGV) has been posting on their Facebook page (since they can’t use Twitter as they were violating the terms of service and all). One of the posts stated “OUR freedoms are endangered by THEIR guns.” This lead me to question whether or not CSGV have a dictionary available to them. When I type “define:freedom” into Google I get the following results:

  1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint

    2. – we do have some freedom of choice
    – he talks of revoking some of the freedoms

  2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government

    3. – he was a champion of Irish freedom

  3. The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved

    4. – the shark thrashed its way to freedom

  4. The state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily

    5. – the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement

  5. The state of not being subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing)

    6. – government policies to achieve freedom from want

  6. The power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity
  7. Unrestricted use of something

    8. – the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out

  8. Familiarity or openness in speech or behavior

I’m sure you’ve noticed a common threat running through the multiple definitions of freedom I found, they all talk about unrestricted action. Thus a freedom is something that requires an action be free of any restriction. For example a freedom of speech would mean you could say whatever you want without having to worry somebody was going to bring violence against you for saying it.

Those of us who support the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms like to say we have the freedom to keep and bear arms. By utilizing this freedom we are in no way encroaching on any other freedom held by any other person. My carrying of a firearm doesn’t prevent you from freely saying whatever you want. Just because I have a gun on my person doesn’t mean you can’t freely travel wherever you desire. My gun in now way hinders you in any way, shape, or form. The only way that my firearm could restrict one of your freedoms is if I used it to aggress against you. In such a case the firearm isn’t the thing aggressing against you, the person wielding the firearm is. I carry a firearm so I can defend myself against those who wish to aggress against me thus preventing them from inhibiting my freedoms.

If the people over at CSGV lack a dictionary and are unable to use Google’s define feature I’d be more than happy to mail them a dictionary free of charge. Why? Because I hate seeing people make asses of themselves simple because they don’t know the definition of a word they’re using.

Anti-Gunners Say the Darnedest Thing

Wow anti-gunners say amazingly stupid things. I’ve pointed out how most of the claims made by anti-gunners are downright false so for this exercise I’ll just let you watch the movie, smile, and realize these people may actually believe their “blood in the streets” claims even though none of them have come to fruition:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDOyqvE4o8I]

I’m amazed that much stupidity could be compressed into a single video.

For the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership *ahem* Violence

It seems as though the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership has been making a habit of trying to “out” gun bloggers. Although I find this maneuver childish I also like to be helpful when I can. I also realize that anti-gunners are often… how can I put this delicately… retarded. Thus I’m going to offer some help to the Coalition.

My name is Christopher Burg. That’s Burg spelled B-U-R-G. I’m from Minnesota so don’t mistake me for some schmuck in New York named Christopher Burg. My Twitter account is @ComradeBurg but you can find me on most other sites simply enough by looking for the user name ChristopherBurg.

There you go, now you can take some credit for “outing me” if you so choose.