* every demographic is safer in places where people own guns

Nice. Simple. Important.

From Mimi and Eunice:

I do agree that the Constitution is flawed, but only because it grants too much power and institutionalized taxation (theft). This idiot probably thinks its antiquated because he wants a glorious tyranny.

Reminds me of celebrated socialist playwright Bernard Shaw:

By the way, Bernard Shaw called for the advent of a “humane gas” to kill useless people:

I think this is a ridiculous combination of Marxism and Keynesianism typical of high-level government officials, with a stress on Marxism, perhaps indicative of a former Labor Secretary.

1) A Marxist devotion to egalitarianism. Good and bad are evaluated in terms of less equal and more equal. Marxisms relies on a fervent hatred of the rich. Here’s an example of why pure egalitarian analysis is flawed:

Imagine a rich town where infant mortality is 3/100,000, and a poor town where infant mortality is 6/100,000. Imagine some technological breakthrough which reduces it by one in each town. So infant mortality becomes 2/100,000 and 5/100,000. Normal people would hail this as an improvement. But Marxists see that it represents an INCREASE in inequality. Instead of infant mortality being twice as high in poor areas, it’s now two and half times as high.

2) He claims we should hate the rich and that there’s a budget deficit because the rich aren’t paying their share.

Shouldn’t the fact that government spending doubled under Bush, and tripled under Obama enter into this analysis? Isn’t that a no-brainer?

Even if the government slaughtered all the rich people and took their money (something which had been attempted in Ukraine and elsewhere), even if the government took 100% of the profits from all fortune 500 companies, we still couldn’t afford the 2011 budget.

Here’s Iowa Hawk’s wonderful illustration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ#t=2m29s

There’s also the fact the rich aren’t the same people from decade to decade. There’s a lot of mobility.

3) “instead of joining together” workers are competing

The Marxist dichotomy of all workers vs. all employers is bullshit. Workers compete against each other and employers compete against each other. Only politicians claim that the interests of huge groups of people are identical. Politicians need large groups of people to hate and/or fear other large groups of people.

4) The middle class can’t borrow, lacks purchasing power = high unemployment.

Spending does not drive the economy, and debt certainly doesn’t drive the economy. Savings do. When people spend less on consumer goods, it means they are saving more (ie planning for the future). In a free economy, this would mean that investment money becomes available for long term projects that will produce goods in the future.

Certain business need to close but opportunities are created for long term projects. The structure of production needs to change, and we ought to simply let it change.

In our Keynsian economy, the government tries to keep spending going, even though people are trying to save.

5) He’s also suggesting something completely ridiculous and wrong headed. He says that politically connected people have too much sway over government, and wants to fix this by giving the government more power. This would back fire if he ever had his way. Giving more resources and power to government means more incentive for people to control government. Letting people keep more of their money is a much better solution.

Also, Austrian School economist Robert Murphy addresses of glaring falsehoods in the former Labo Secretary’s presentation:

Osama al-Nujaifi, the Iraqi parliament speaker, has told Al Jazeera that the amount of Iraqi money unaccounted for by the US is $18.7bn – three times more than the reported $6.6bn.

Just before departing for a visit to the US, al-Nujaifi said that he has received a report this week based on information from US and Iraqi auditors that the amount of money withdrawn from a fund from Iraqi oil proceeds, but unaccounted for, is much more than the $6.6bn reported missing last week.

“There is a lot of money missing during the first American administration of Iraqi money in the first year of occupation.

“Iraq’s development fund has lost around $18bn of Iraqi money in these operations – their location is unknown. Also missing are the documents of expenditure.

“I think it will be discussed soon. There should be an answer to where has Iraqi money gone.”

The Bush administration flew in a total of $20bn in cash into the country in 2004. This was money that had come from Iraqi oil sales, surplus funds from the UN oil-for-food programme and seized Iraqi assets.

Officials in Iraq were supposed to give out the money to Iraqi ministries and US contractors, intended for the reconstruction of the country.

‘No trace’

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that Iraqi officials argue that the US government was supposed to safeguard the stash under a 2004 legal agreement it signed with Iraq, hence making Washington responsible for the cash that has disappeared. (Read more from english.aljazeera.net)

TRIPOLI, Libya — NATO acknowledged Saturday that its aircraft had mistakenly hit a column of rebel military vehicles last week near the Libyan oil port of Brega, and early Sunday morning the Qaddafi government showed reporters a destroyed cinder-block house that neighbors and the government said was hit by an errant NATO airstrike in the capital. (Read more from nytimes.com)

Not a single Afghan police or army unit is capable of maintaining law and order in the war-torn country without the support of coalition forces, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. Almost a decade after international troops were sent in to overthrow the Taliban and help to establish a functioning democracy in Afghanistan, a combination of poor training, lack of numbers, corruption and illiteracy has left the country unable to protect its own people. (Read more from independent.co.uk)

(duh)

The hugely expensive U.S. attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan has had only limited success and may not survive an American withdrawal, according to the findings of a two-year congressional investigation to be released Wednesday.

The report calls on the administration to rethink urgently its assistance programs as President Obama prepares to begin drawing down the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan this summer.

The report, prepared by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic majority staff, comes as Congress and the American public have grown increasingly restive about the human and economic cost of the decade-long war and reflects growing concerns about Obama’s war strategy even among supporters within his party.

The report describes the use of aid money to stabilize areas the military has cleared of Taliban fighters — a key component of the administration’s counterinsurgency strategy — as a short-term fix that provides politically pleasing results. But it says that the enormous cash flows can overwhelm and distort local culture and economies, and that there is little evidence the positive results are sustainable. (Read more from washingtonpost.com)