Free Fall

I never watched the movie, "Thelma and Louise." It's not because of the ladies. My son thinks Susan Sarandon is hot. I think Geena Davis is hot. I have "The Long Kiss Goodnight" recorded on my DVR.

But I never watched T & L. Why? It was a popular movie. It just didn't seem reasonable to watch a movie where the finale was based upon driving over a cliff. Ultimately get away? Mebbe. Thrown in the jug? Mebbe. Bonnie and Clyded? (A new verb!) Perhaps. But I never watched "Bonnie and Clyde," either. And Faye Dunaway was hot.

I find that there are movies out there where the characters make choices that result in predictable outcomes that I find reprehensible. Case in point, the scene in "Support Your Local Gunfighter" where Latigo Smith bets it all on a turn of the roulette wheel. Love the Garner films. Switch channels when he hits the roulette wheel. And then, put it out of my mind. (BTW--Suzanne Pleshette is hot, too.)

I know that my reaction to certain types of activity, choices and outcomes is a human trait. There are others out there who at least wince in their knowledge of the probable outcome of Latigo's bet. Otherwise, how could a phenomenon such as jury nullification occur? It's kinda like tattoos; while I would never have one--and hope that neither of my sons ever have one--some are innocuous enough to escape derision. I just don't get why a woman would ever, voluntarily, have a "tramp stamp" embedded in her skin. And it really breaks my heart to think about women, like Geena and Suzanne, marring their beauty with a tat. Although I know that Geena does have at least one tat. And that Suzanne had been married to Troy Donahue for eight months. And, that would leave a mark.

Thankfully, with the state of the art in tattoo removal being where it is today (due mostly to the evil corporations who are only doing it because they are greedy) one need not rely upon the cheese shredder for tattoo removal any more. That is, some mistakes can be undone.

Driving over a cliff has a low probability for "undoneness."


I guess what we're witnessing is a problem with impulse control. (For more on that, watch an Otto Preminger film.) We've been taught at every turn that doing good is, well, good.

The problem we're seeing here is that the idea of you or I doing good, as a result of upbringing or religious training, is being swamped by the effects of politicians who believe they were elected in order to "do good."

Which puts those of us who don't see government as the source of "goodness" in an almost untenable position. Absent doing good, what is the role of government?

We've abandoned the role of government as it was seen by our nation's founders. The United States of America was founded on a recognition that the national government was going to handle the big lifting on issues of international relations, and certain other activities, while the bulk of the policies that control our day-to-day living would originate, and be the responsibility or, the states. As a citizen of both Oregon and the United States, I would have certain limits put on my behaviour by the state government, but would be protected in my speech assailing or opposing those rules imposed by my state, through my federally protected free speech rights. The national government was formed to make sure that certain activities were regulated by the federal government, in order to protect the civil liberties, including the rights of property, from intrusion by the state governments.

We've now become a nation, and a collection of states, whose agenda seems filled with good ideas about doing good. Tens of thousands of good ideas are presented in the legislatures and councils of our nation's governments. Port commissions, diking districts, regulatory agencies, all filled with good ideas on how to do more good.

Good has become the number product of national economic activity. And when good won't suffice, we'll replace it with better.

Me? I've had it up to here with all the do-gooding that contrives its appearance on the near and far horizons of political activity. Any thought or statement that begins with the premise of "wouldn't it be good," or "wouldn't it be nice," or "wouldn't it be helpful" should serve to reject the corollary statement. Likewise, "we need to protect" should be removed from our legislative process. Who today is at risk, in any greater or lesser degree, than was at risk a day, a week or a decade ago?

Of course, this puts me in direct opposition to every single-issue group out there. And every single-issue group out there is composed of true believers, dedicated to getting more and more from the community, the state or the nation. They aren't sucking the blood out of their neighbors, they are doing good.

I was, in my younger days, an award winning philanthropist. I was conceited enough to presume that by helping others, I could make a difference. I was doing good. But I wasn't doing good. I was creating in others a dependence upon my conceit.

People make decisions in their own lives each and every day. Life, itself, is a great teacher. If you're hungry, eat. Eating is easier if you have food, so...get some food. You can grow it, you can steal it, you can buy it. You can find it in the fields, rivers and oceans. Learning which method best serves you, I would think, would be one of the first discoveries of a human being. If you're neither going to grow nor forage, your best choice may be to buy it or steal it. Again, this fundamental choice we all face seems to be quite a struggle for a great number of people. I don't see how. Grow, forage, buy or steal. I think that pretty well covers the range of choices.

Until government steps in. Or, rather, politicians with the levers of government control in their hands. To do good, your government will assure you that regardless of the series of bad choices, or bad luck, that makes you incapable of performing the single most important act of a human being, inure to no ill-effect. The thing that drives microbes, flies and raccoons will no longer be a driver for a whole, protected class of humans.

We have created a society where no member of that society has a responsibility for providing for his own, basic survival. Because, to do less, would be "not good."

And the State of Oregon is not falling off the cliff.

It is in freefall.



The issues of fiscal responsibility are being ignored by the political class. There are individual members of that class that are attempting to gain your attention of the train wreck looming ahead.

"Sales of new homes in July drop 12.4%, lowest level since ’63."



Learning to say "no."

Learning to say, I have enough respect for the men and women around me that, left to their own devices, they will figure out how to take care of themselves. If they want to feed themselves and their families, they will determine how best to do so; farm, forage, purchase or steal. It might mean that someone, somewhere along the line, will "have to do something."

I really don't care what. All I know is, I'm no longer so conceited that my going out and working to provide others with their basic, human necessities has any value to the recipient, or those who share in my society, in the long-run. Birds do it. Bees do it. Even, the lillies of the field.

But I am a selfish man for wishing that you and I take responsibility for our mere ability to provide ourselves with food. Farm, forage, purchase or steal. Those are your choices.

Unless you rely upon politicians to do your stealing for you.

"Why I'm Not Hiring"

I spend a great deal of time monitoring the commentariat, guys like Kudlow, for instance. I like Kudlow, although he falls into a Panglossian trap of his own making too often. He's human, and at times offers opinions that don't always make sense. But, what the value of a man like Kudlow is, is in his ability to retract his opinions which, upon reflection, weren't correct or helpful.

So, too, for Michael Medved. I listen to his shows in the afternoon on 770 AM "The Truth" from the Puget Sound. Signal isn't always great (it is a fur piece to Seattle from Astoria) but the content is outstanding. And listening yesterday, I heard from a man named Michael P. Fleischer.

I'm linking to Mr. Fleischer's article here. (pdf) If you can figure it out, I guess you can listen to Medved's interview with Fleischer on his website. (For me, if it isn't easy, it's not gonna happen.)

Here's an excerpt from his article:

"With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

"Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay."

Mr. Fleischer has done a wonderful job outlining the pernicious policies of federal, state and local governments. Of course, it's much worse here in Oregon, because of Oregon's anti-growth, anti-prosperity, anti-development, anti-wealth policies. When your state actively opposes the vitality and robustness of the free-market private sector, under the banner of state directed innovation, you know your economic goose is cooked. If you wonder why the Left is so sarcastic, I think it's due to a total lack of a sense for the ironic.

Of course, none of this fazes the Left, who are quite transparent about their desire to reduce the state and nation's standard of living. Unicorns and Pixie Dust for the Left. It doesn't matter that you can't survive on Unicorns and Pixie Dust. They will attempt to do so, anyway. 'Cause it doesn't matter! If there's not enough food, well, we simply shouldn't have so many people!

It all makes sense.

We're purposefully destroying the state's economy, because it's a good thing! All we need is plenitude. No, it's not the same as either necessity or sufficiency. And it's definately not about individual liberty. Liberty is so twentieth century. Get over it.

What Is The Ideal Price Of A Thing?

I had an interesting conversation with a fellow last week. He had spent time with people, whom he respected, talking about music. The conversation included talk about a recent vacation, and work. The issue that came up was the outlook for jobs and the economy. He was shocked to listen to these people ask questions of him that left me not so much depressed, but yet again aware of the terrible influence Leftism has on what should be people with common sense.

My friend expressed concern over the current anti-business atmosphere in the nation, but especially the anti-business atmosphere in Oregon. His hosts admitted a concern that we learn how adapt to a diminution of expectations, as we decrease the standard of living in this nation.

His hosts expressed a concern of how we adapt to a lower standard of living, as we adjust the economy away from the creation and expansion of wealth, to an economy of lower wealth, reduced consumption and fewer economic choices.

My friend was flabbergasted.

Yet, living in Oregon creates opportunities. He sallied forth. He was polite and respectful. I would not be. I don't spend time with idiots, no matter how well ensconced in good intentions they may blanket themselves. Here is idiocy in full bloom. And yet my friend, more blessed in patience and an enduring commitment to civility, bespoke himself well. In my estimation.

He objected to the idea that the role of government was to turn against the basic economic impulses of the individual, or, the animal spirits. There hasn't been much in terms of basic research that serves to disprove much of what DesCartes asserts, even if the attention has shifted from the pineal to the amygdala. When it comes to addiction, alcoholism, drug addiction, the amygdala has given a whole class of do-gooders reason to think that they can overcome the curse of animal spirits with a chemical palate that reduces the choices we make as humans to a subset of chemical reactions to a variety of inputs; from carbs, sugars and proteins, to drugs which pretend to fix such reactions as serotonin uptake.

The divide that occurs in any such discussion devolves immediately to a single point; which is to be more greatly treasured, mediocrity or excellence?

What compels the musician to perfect reproduction of the composer's work? What drives the horn player to train his lips to produce an embouchure that with the simple tick of one of several small muscles in the lips, jumps the note perfectly up a third, fourth or fifth? What compels the mathematician to produce faultless analysis? What compels the woodworker to build a work of art rather than dreck?

There are few athletes who can garner million, or multi-million dollar contracts for playing the sports they play. Just as rare are those oboe players who advance to the top ranks of their profession. The tens of thousands of hours of practise each of these individual has committed to has made their earning potential an actuality. That Kareem made more in a season than John Mack is indisputable. That John Mack has had a greater, and will continue to have, a more lasting influence on the world is indisputable. Having met John Mack I would aver that he had little self-doubt as to his influence. Not having met Kareem, I am without care of his value of his own self-worth. Kareem will become a foot-note. John Mack still has influence in the training and development of musicians around the world.

What price was necessary to compel either of these men to do what they did?

Knowing what John Mack did to achieve what he achieved, I'd be happy to advance the notion that never, at any time, did financial reward ever motivate him to produce the beauty that he was able to produce with his life. Similarly, I'd be willing to advance the notion that Kareem would also have been just as compelled to produce the record of success he was responsible for without care of the amount of money he made to achieve those goals. Simply being the best was reward enough.

The difference is, what is the market willing to bid for the services for either of these gentlemen?

What is the ideal price of a thing?

What was the value to the Lakers for Kareem? What was it about the Lakers, or the New York Knicks, that made those teams preferable to Kareem than the Bucks? What impact did George Szell have on John Mack?

It can be argued that the wage delivered to either man was based upon an agreement between the player and their bargaining unit. But those of us who actually descend into the value of things know that the mere presence of a contract for players of world level competence fails to describe the actual value of such appointments. Tiger didn't make billions based upon his winnings in the PGA. Neither did Kareem or John limit themselves to the money offered through their contracts with their peers.

And yet, I would proffer, would any of these men prefer simple gilt to standing atop their separate spheres of influence, being recognized as the greatest, or amongst the greatest, of what they do or did. While Tiger would love to win a major for the bucks, I don't think he is being motivated for the bucks. He would rather stand atop the field. He has the bucks. He has more money than you and I will ever have. And, he earned each and every buck.

But, how did he do it? How did Kareem? How did John? What is it that compels the man standing behind the counter in my local builder's supply store to understand the problem I face in painting the wall of my bathroom and recommend the appropriate sealer, primer and paint? What is it that compels my buddy at the local Chevy store to make sure that I'm buying the right car or truck? What is it that compels the tech guy at my local computer store to make sure that I'm buying the right box for my kid?

What are the animal spirits that operate behind the scenes in any interaction that takes place between men of creation and the demand for creative solutions? Why would I take umbrage at my friend's making millions of dollars running a Chevy dealership, when neither you nor I would take that umbrage at LeBron making millions playing a game?

The questions I raise are simple. What is the ideal price of a thing? What would you have to pay a John Mack, a Kareem Alcindor, or a Tiger to play at the top of their games? The answer is, nothing. John used to scrape pennies together for his lessons with Tabuteau. If there were no NBA, do you think Kareem would have quit playing? What do you think motivates Tiger today? The paycheck, or overcoming the stupid he has created for himself? Golf is a tough enough game without wrapping several albatrosses around ones neck. Does Tiger have feet of clay? Is it enough to have been great once?

How do we adapt to a lower standard of living?

It is without question, to me, what we aspire toward; excellence. How does our natural inclination toward excellence tend to lead us, without coercion, toward a lower standard of living?

My friend's hosts weren't simple idiots. There was a great deal of caring in their attitudes toward the business community. That is, they saw the business community as a destructive force. They cared for the worker abused by the capitalist. Ironically, his hosts owned a Prius, probably the most wasteful car currently in production. But, having read all the labels, and the opinion journals, have determined that their wastefulness is for the betterment of their fellows, where price is no object. After all, what is the ideal price of a thing?

When it's all said and done, the ideal price of a thing is the price you're willing to pay. When watching the following video, I'd like you to keep that in mind, as well as the corollary, what is the price at which you're willing to sell?

Plenitude: The New Economics of True Wealth

It's about an hour long. Watch it. Listen to the avoidance of verbs. It's chilling that people can sit in a room for an hour and agree about things without stating what it is they agree with. It is because, in stark language, what they are agreeing with is the need to impose externalities to achieve outcomes that have nothing to do with what the needs are of each of us as individuals. It's kind of a Stepford Wives for social democracy.

Not that there was anything wrong with the Stepford Wives.