Posted by: Ned Ryun in Untagged on
Jun 23, 2009
It seems these days when I read Rand or Hayek I am reading something prophetic. Both were writing 40-50 years ago and it seems almost every day the truth of their writings is becoming more and more evident. Just proves that the times change, but the nature of man stays the same. I was reading The Road to Serfdom and came across this section:
"But it would make the very men who are most anxious to plan society the most dangerous is they were allowed to do so-and the most intolerant of the planning of others. From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step. Though it is the resentment of the frustrated specialist which gives the demand for planning its strongest impetus, there could hardly be a more unbearable-and more irrational-world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each field were allowed to proceed unchecked with the realization of their ideals." Hayek, p 62.
Posted by: Ned Ryun in Untagged on
Jun 22, 2009
I am growing more and more concerned that the idea of limited government conservatism has been so diluted in its meaning that we've lost sight of what it really means. People proclaim their conservatism, but act in ways that are not true to those principles. Even worse, their identifying themselves as conservatives leaves those watching with badly mistaken idea of what conservatism is actually about. My thinking has been that we have to go back to the basics: teach what conservatism really means so that when a counterfeit conservatism, or conservative, comes across our paths, we can readily identify it or him or her as a counterfeit. The
Intercollegiate Studies Institute has come up with something to help address the problem: their
First Principles Short Courses. There are six topics covered: Western Civilization, the American Experience, Free Markets and Civil Society, America's Security, American Conservative Thought, and Higher Education and the Liberal Arts. I can't wait to work through the courses.
Posted by: Douglas Price in Untagged on
Jun 17, 2009
A little light-heartedness for this Wednesday morning. For all those who claim that President Obama is so harmless that he wouldn't hurt a fly, I dare you to watch this video.
As of this posting, the linked video had 21 views. That's 17 more views than the viewership of the show this clip was featured on: Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
Posted by: Ned Ryun in Untagged on
Jun 15, 2009
There's a nice article about American Majority in the recent edition of The American Spectator. My hope is that many who attended the tea parties, who want to become empowered as better activists or leaders in their communities will tap into American Majority trainings.
Posted by: Ned Ryun in Untagged on
Jun 12, 2009
I just finished reading Burton Folsom's The Myth of the Robber Barons. Interesting study of the mythology behind the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, etc. Folsom draws a distinction between two types of entrepreneurs: the market vs. political. The market ones were the true entrepreneurs, who were the innovators and competed effectively in the open market, with the end result being a better and cheaper product for the great populace. The political ones were those who tried to succeed through subsidies, vote buying and lobbying, stock speculation, etc. Folsom makes the point that market entrepreneurs, ". . . made decisive and unique contributions to American economic development. The political entrepreneurs stifled productivity (through monopolies and pools), corrupted business and politics, and dulled America's competitive edge." I thought one of the more fascinating chapters was on Rockefeller and his 30 year "oil war" with the Russians, and how the only way Rockefeller could succeed was by providing better product more effeciently; he was able to succeed and provide a gallon of oil at $.05 cents a gallon. Not only did the cheap fuel change people's lives (up until fuel was cheap, those with lower incomes did not work or read after dark; Rockefeller changed that), but Rockefeller was able to dominate the world market for years because of his "winning in the margins." Some will say, "Great. He made a billion dollars. So what." By winning the oil war with Russia and dominating the oil market, Rockefeller infused the American economy with more jobs for more people, which in turn infused the American economy with more capital. On top of that, Rockefeller, a devout Christian, was also a great philanthropist. By the time he died in 1937, he'd given away $550,000,000. That's when a dollar meant something. His giving allowed medical breakthroughs, schools, churches, scientific breakthroughs for farmers that made them more productive, and the list goes on.
Folsom makes the point in the last chapter about the failure of the state as an economic developer, which I think is appropriate considering the government take-over of GM. First, the state fails as a subsidizer of economic growth. Second, it fails as an entrepreneur. Third, it even fails as an active regulator of trade. Finally, Folsom makes the point that the best thing the state did between 1840-1920: it for the most part stayed away from, or had minimal, subsidies, tariffs or income taxes. And in return, the market entrepreneurs succeeded and made America an economic powerhouse. A good lesson for today.
Posted by: Douglas Price in Untagged on
Jun 08, 2009
Last week, President Obama announced that the upcoming G-20 summit will be held in Pittsburgh, PA. My first reaction is that this was purely a political move. Hosting a summit in a consistent battleground state next door to another battleground state seemed like a shrewd move. Obama praised the city for its transformation over the past couple decades and how it serves as a model for what is currently facing Detroit and the auto industry.
After reading this commentary by Howard Fineman in Newsweek, I got a better picture of where Pittsburgh came from and how they have become a world class city again. His point is that the city of Pittsburgh did not transform because of massive government intervention and bailouts, but through civic pride and local initiative.
Pittsburgh used to be the center of the steel industry. Yet, as was the case with many cities across Pennsylvania, the need for steel mills diminished. Suddenly the city was faced with an identity crisis. Slowly (and painfully according to Fineman), residents of the city picked themselves up through local initiative and has helped the city emerge as a leader in education, technology, medicine and manufacturing.
