Paradocracy

Leftist “logic” tends to operate from the premise of fallacy and from an undying enthusiasm for character assassination.  From false attributions to false dilemmas or pure ad hominem attacks, the common leftist will stop at nothing to place a threatening idea and its presenter into a coffin, sometimes literally.  In the case of a threatening presenter, the insecure leftist always reserves a full arsenal capable of swiftly eliminating the threat with a quick and simple knee-jerk quip about the credibility (or personality) of said threat.  For instance, if you’re poor or middle-class, the common leftist will contend that you’re clearly not good enough to make more money, and therefore your ideas must be just as worthless.  If you’re wealthy, your ideas are innately clouded by avarice and an inherent inability to relate to poorer people and the subject matter under consideration.  If you don’t have a degree or a title next to your name, you lack the credentials to merit any re

Many economists model economic growth as if they were evaluating their own conversations with the person across from them, fully unaware that they are staring into a mirror and admiring the manipulated projection of what they had hoped to see. In still further cases, they appear to broadly model economic, fiscal and monetary policies as if they are learning to drive by strictly studying the movements of everything in the rear-view mirror. Of course, this method would largely serve to distract from the guiding principles of driving and the useful rules for effective navigation, yet if left exclusively to this perspective it would hardly be surprising for the surveyor to desperately formulate a contrived theory about the relationships between the behaviors of everything behind the driver and how he or she in turn maneuvers the vehicle. Of course, this theory would be aptly described as utterly incomplete, if not patently worthless, by anyone who’s ever personally driven a car, ta

The transformation of the American economy is largely due to the debasement of common currency or legal tender, the disincentives which have followed to discourage savings, and the dramatic changes to the composition and complexion of investment, the largest of which can be aptly characterized as (direct or indirect) government spending at the real yet unseen expense of business investment.  Whereas direct government spending once constituted a mere 3 percent of American economic activity at the turn of the twentieth century, it has ballooned to greater than 40 percent of that pie today.  Notwithstanding the rear view mirror economists who attribute growth to spending, purchasing power and meaningful enhancements to the average standard of living follow from changes to marginal (and utile) productivity, not just to the vivacious velocity of money.  Of course, the identifiable factors which have been popularly lauded for driving nominal economic growth in the new American economy

Today, I witnessed a conversation between YouTube commenters which inspired me to shed some light on myopic deduction practices and failures of economics.  The original commenter posted the following remarks: “I’m a fan of the GT350R. I can’t wait to buy one. I’ll wait until California adds one more dollar per gallon to gas. Hopefully that would bring down the price.”  This individual commits the common fallacy of focusing on one feature of the picture while neglecting to appreciate the whole thing.  In an environment of rising fuel prices, the transportation and production costs will scale upward, leaving new production to clear markets at increasingly higher prices or otherwise clear at lower prices with inferior quality.  If the original poster intends to purchase a used GT350R, as opposed to the implied new purchase, then he needn't exclusively wait for higher fuel prices to mitigate demand, as the average (non-collectible) vehicle will invariably depreciate (in real

We increasingly witness a society which is being governed by emotional and political qualms despite their stark contradictions with reality.  In many senses, we are today dealing in a world of protests against organic phenomena or sheer human preference, as if we encountered a collapsing tree or a runaway train and dared to stand in front of it and pronounce it wrong or incorrect.  Despite our opinions on those two scenarios, the tree will likely only continue to fall until it reaches the ground, just as the train is likely to proceed right through the impassioned shouts of of caffeinated protestors.  Standing in front of the train or in the path of the falling tree is just as foolish as condemning the properties of this world and attempting to redefine them to better resemble the world of one’s dreams.  In this sense, we bear witness to a host of excitable chatterboxes who deal in an ill-defined world wholly separate from reality, where fashionable suppositions and emotional a