Posted by Marc Hodak on October 7, 2007 under Practical definitions | 
I’ve been seeing these ads on TV with a child saying, “I’m too young to vote, but if I could…” they say they would vote for the candidate who will “fix” health care, and protect Social Security and pensions. This ad is sponsored by the AARP.
This is my new definition of chutzpah.
For those of you who haven’t studied the numbers, AARP is the organization most committed to the greatest inter-generational wealth transfer in world history. They have saddled today’s kids, those cute ragamuffins who can’t yet vote, with $39 trillion in liabilities in excess of assets for Social Security and Medicare. Now, the AARP wants to continue that campaign in the name of the kids.
(Below the fold is a math challenge)
Read more of this article »
Posted by Marc Hodak on October 2, 2007 under Practical definitions |
Illegal labor. What an ugly term.
Definition: I want to work for you. You want me to work for you. Someone else gets to say: “Too bad.”
That someone else very likely has zero interest in this proposed transaction; they just don’t want me to work for you. They will call me “illegal” because they can, and use that as an excuse to stop us from agreeing to help each other out.
Or that someone else might have some pie-in-the-sky, stupid-ass reason for wanting me to not be able to work. They might belong to some organization called Californians for Population Stabilization. This organization actually says that there are “too many people.” Yes. In a state with one of the lowest population densities in a largely unpopulated country. If this sounds disingenuous, that’s because it is.
Californians for Population Stabilization, like most organizations using the term “illegal labor,” is actually a front for the unions. Unions are deathly afraid of anyone possessing two hands and a brain because such persons represent labor competition. Unions would like all labor competition to be banned. This reflects a profound ignorance about the nature of an economy, that it’s a fixed-pie, zero-sum game. It ignores that those hands are attached to a mouth, and that brain contains aspirations. In other words, a working human being creates at least as much demand for labor as supply.
Thus, labeling certain people as “illegal,” intended to undermine their ability to support themselves, actually undermines their potential as sources of jobs for others. We’re used to unions engaging in self-destructive behavior by undermining the companies and industries they dominate. At least in those cases, some existing workers get a temporary benefit from bleeding their companies, even if it eventually undermines their jobs. But why should we put up with union attempts to keep other people from working for everyone’s benefit?
Posted by Marc Hodak on September 8, 2007 under Practical definitions |
This colorful sign is posted at airports and rail stations all over the country, so I’ve been seeing it a lot recently. I wonder if it means anything at all? I mean beyond the CYA function it serves our politicians. That I understand: As long as the threat level is “Elevated” or worse, our senior public officials have a magic pass to turn responsibility into blame if anything bad happens. Instead of saying “We failed you,” as they do in more honorable societies, our politicians get to say “I told you so.” See the difference? “We failed you.” “I told you so.”
In a society where authority comes with accountability, the incentive is for people to be careful about how much authority they assume. In a society where grabbing authority comes with little incremental accountability, you get…Homeland Security, the FDA, OSHA…
Websters defines risk as “possibility of loss or injury.” That broad definition means different things to different people. So, here are two versions of the expanded definition of risk:
Risk (scientist): A probability of loss or injury; often used to trade off against the probability of gain or reward
Risk (politician): The likelihood of loss or injury; easily used to justify more power or tax funding
The political view is immediately distinguished from the scientific one by its reliance on availability bias. Nowhere is this scientist/politician distinction better illustrated than our Homeland Security Advisory System. From a politician’s point of view, there is always a possibility of terrorist attack. Beyond that, their assignment of a color code appears to be based on a secret lotto wheel or big, fuzzy dice with only three possibilities: “Elevated” “High” and “Severe.”
Scientifically, what we’ve experienced with this color-coded system makes no sense. Sure, they’ve been very good at raising the alert after an incident occurs, but what good does that do anyone? We have been never been below Yellow alert–an “elevated” risk. For most of the time since the system has been put into place, we have been on Orange alert–“High” threat. After five years of this nonsense, we have plenty of data on threat levels vs. actual incidents. You’d think there should be a correlation between the two. Anyone care to guess what that correlation is?
Posted by Marc Hodak on August 29, 2007 under Practical definitions |
OK, let’s take a look at the logical content of this statement:
My opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn’t serve. That’s not a moral stand. That’s not a holier-than-thou. It’s just a factual situation.
That was Senator John McCain. The guy who wanted to be our president.
Here is clue, John: Any statement that includes the word “should” (or “shouldn’t”) is a moral stand. “Should” statements are not factual. You should go back and get some education.
And, by the way, anyone who says their attitude is not “holier-than-thou” doth protesteth. But, apparently, they can still get lots of votes.
Posted by Marc Hodak on August 23, 2007 under Practical definitions |
Megan McArdle has really stepped into the collectivist swamp in her new gig at The Atlantic. Just check out the responses to her posts. Part of the problem is that she is speaking in a slightly different language from that of The Atlantic’s normal readers. So, here are some basic definitions of certain terms that appear to be causing at least some of the confusion.
Self-interest: You doing what you want to do.
Enlightened self-interest: You doing what I want you to do.
Social contract: Those with political power telling everyone else what to do.
Contrast the last definition with this:
Brute-force collectivism: Those with political power telling everyone else what to do.
I hope that helps.
