Rand Paul’s Criticism of Reagan Is Unfair, Misplaced.

Recently-although not that recently, since I can’t work and keep totally on top of everything that happens in the world-Senator Rand Paul criticized the record of President Ronald Reagan on spending, comparing him unfavorably to Carter. I’m obviously saddened to hear this, as I’m actually a fan of Paul, and more obviously, and fan of Reagan. But I’m not afraid to criticize people I generally like when I think they’re wrong, even if their going astray really is a rare miss. Rand Paul cites statistics that are, as a matter of literal fact, accurate. However, Paul has fallen victim to a dangerous political myth: that of the All Powerful President. It is wrong to give all of the credit, or all of the blame, to the President of the United States for everything that happens during their term(s) in office. It is especially wrong to do so when the Congress is controlled by the opposition party. Although Republicans controlled the Senate from January 1981 to January 1987, at no point during Reagan’s Presidency-and indeed at no point from 1953 to 1995 did Republicans control the House of Representatives at all. You should consider that last point for a bit, also: the House of Representatives was at one point controlled by Democrats for forty two years. It is Congress, not the President, which ultimately possesses the power of the purse. And the House in particular is important in this regard. Measures for raising revenue-which in practice generally means the entire budget-must originate in the House of Representatives. So under the Reagan administration, a significant degree of the blame for increased spending should fall on Congress, with only a relatively small portion of the blame falling on Reagan for not fighting hard to restrain spending. Cynically, it is likely that doing so would have insured a Mondale Presidency-who would have basically run the country into the ground, to be perfectly frank. Similarly, Bill Clinton does not deserve the credit he is given for the restrained of Government growth in the 1990′s-the fact that Republicans regained control of the House for the first time in two generations-that’s 21 elections!-and fought impressively for an agenda today’s GOP wouldn’t dream of achieving, actually succeeding in achieving most of their ambitious goals. Clinton fought this every step of the way, but not quite to the bitter end the way Obama has proven frighteningly willing to. It is remarkable enough that Reagan managed to achieve as much as he did, in fact it’s likely that much of his agenda had to be achieved by giving spending to the House Democrats. But there is much, in retrospect, that we have learned from the Reagan years. Certainly not the lessons many people think we ought to have learned. But perhaps Paul has mostly learned the right lessons. For example, we have learned that deals to cut spending, traded for higher taxes, lead to higher taxes and higher spending-hence the familiar left wing talking point about how many times “Reagan raised taxes” (which, again, and even more strongly, is the responsibility of Congress and in particular the Democrats running the part of it from which revenue measures must originate. We have learned that “comprehensive immigration reform” meaning deals cut to secure the border traded for amnesty for illegal aliens, results in more illegal aliens and no actual border security-and leads, gradually, and unfortunately inevitably, to the demographic suicide of the United States of America. In short, we’ve learned what we should have known all along. The other side is evil and not to be trusted. You don’t compromise with the devil (speaking metaphorically here, butthurt atheists).

If you fault Reagan for anything, as a Conservative, or a True Liberal (rather than these Pre-Liberals who call themselves “Progressives” who would advance society by advancing an agenda to reconstruct Medieval society) it is being too compromising. Too willing to reach across the aisle and work with the other side. The struggle between individualism and collectivism is a fight between right and wrong, a moral battle. So I’d be quite pleased if, say, a President Paul would be unwilling to compromise in this fight. But be fair. Intellectually, I believe Reagan understood that. But unfortunately it is difficult to act like this in practice. The Leftists are our friends, our neighbors, our countrymen. As much victims of their own hateful, repugnant ideology as they are perpetrators. And Reagan was sentimental, and friendly to a fault. A man who could write, privately, of JFK being, underneath the boyish haircut, still old Karl Marx, but who never the less considered his adversary in Majority leader Tip O’Neill a friend. Hate the sin love the sinner, better Christians would say. These days it is easy to criticize that sort of sentimentality. The stakes are too high these days, to be that way anymore. Still, I really do think that Paul has erred, and done a disservice to Reagan and to history, with a criticism that is not really fair.

Comments Off

Filed under Conservatism, Fiscal Policy, General, History, Liberals, Republicans

The Streets are not paved with hundred dollar bills.

Which is just a colorful way of saying, easy profit making opportunities do not sit unexploited for long. If there is a hundred dollar bill on the ground, someone will pick it up, certainly before the dropped bills can coat the road like fresh asphalt. This seems trivial, but it has important implications because many people don’t seem to grasp the lesson this obvious fact offers.

For example, many people actually believe that employers get away with paying women only about three quarters of what they pay men to do the same work-and on the basis of believing this, they advocate making it easier for women to sue employers over alleged pay discrimination. But consider what it would mean if this were actually true: the cost of employing a man to do a job rather than a woman would amount to a massive forgone profit by any employer. The streets could be paved with the hundreds of dollars employers supposedly willingly give up for the sake of employing men! An entrepreneur could build a successful business model on the singular idea that he will only hire female employees-or at least, hire female employees to do the hire paid positions, it might raise eyebrows if he employed that many more women than men in total. At the very least, though, at the margin, when considering whether to hire an additional employee or not, women would have a distinct advantage in terms of the probability they would get the job over a male candidate for the same job.

Of course, obviously none of that is actually the case. What gives? Well what gives is that the claim that there is a massive employer gender discrimination epidemic is a big fat lie. It’s a big fat lie that women make much less money for the same work. In point of fact, the average woman makes significantly less money than the average man (working full time). This raises the interesting question: what is an average job? How do you take the average of a doctor and a retail sales worker? You can take the average of their pay, but you can’t take the average of the jobs themselves. There is no average job. But if there was an “average job” it would not entail the same work for the average man as it would for the average woman. Like it or not, men and women tend to go on different career paths, and men tend to go into career paths that will ultimately compensate them more than those chosen by women. It’s entirely possible that this is a result of discrimination of a kind. But the discrimination does not take place during a job application. It takes place, if it does at all, during the woman’s education at a young age almost certainly in a public school. It makes no sense to say a woman ought to be able to sue an employer because her teachers encouraged her to go into a lower paying career. Of course, they wouldn’t-they currently have the ability to sue, in fact, the proposed legislation is actually to extend the statue of limitations, as I understand it, but it’s already illegal to discriminate in pay on the basis of gender. But because they wouldn’t, lawsuits won’t do much to reduce the pay gap, since very little of it might actually be due to discrimination. Most of it is explained by different educational and career paths, different choices about how much work to do, whether to leave work and have children-which in turn requires different choices of about one’s career path and negatively impacts one’s work experience relative to men. It’s telling that even without accounting for different jobs, there is a significantly smaller gap in pay between men and women that were never married and have no children than all men and women. Accounting for many of these factors will typically, in the literature, narrow the gap from 23 cents on the dollar to just 5 cents. 5 cents are left to possibly be due to discrimination, and possibly due to other factors that are difficult to account for or quantify. I know it seems an outlandish, blasphemous possibility to those who believe it to be an absolute fact that women are every bit the perfect equals and substitutes for men in all ways, but you know? It’s actually possible women are just 5% less productive than men! Horror of horrors. But considering that discrimination is already illegal, I’d offer another possibility. Ironically enough, employers may pay men more because risk of getting sued makes female employees a liability. I can’t really say which of these suggestions, or other possibilities, is the most likely explanation. I do think, however, that this is an incredibly flimsy case to build legislation to make it easier to sue employers on.

Another example would be the theoretical case people build the possibility of a minimum wage actually improving employment on. The idea is that there is widespread “monopsony” power in the labor market. Monopsony is basically a market imperfection opposite of a monopoly, where instead of one person on the supply side of the transaction and many on the demand side, there is one person on the demand side and many on the supply side. It should be quite obvious that a literal monopsony can’t prevail in any labor market, since there are clearly multiple employers for basically any job. But some proponents of a hire minimum wage argue that it does, in effect prevail in low and unskilled labor markets. As it turns out though, if this actually were true, it would in fact constitute another case of foregone profits! Why? Because implicitly, the employees of a monopsonist are paid less than their marginal product. While this may be a way for the monopsonist to increase his profits-but only if those are not competed away in his role as a supplier of the output, in the form of correspondingly lower output prices-a prospective competitor can take advantage of the situation by picking off underpaid employees from the monopsonist, by hiring them at wages that are slightly higher-keep in mind that all of them have marginal product greater than their marginal cost currently by assumption, so you should be able to profit all the way up to paying them their actual marginal product. In other words, people who believe this monopsony problem exists, could get into business and make good money, at the same time as doing good for the low skilled workers they claim to care about. One doesn’t need a law to mandate higher wages in such a case, they could do it themselves. And yet, tellingly, they decline to do so. Equally tellingly, no entrepeneurs seem inclined to capitalize on this “knowledge” even if they would be in a better position than the academic who believes this to be true-and be sure that there are people who could start such businesses, or own existing businesses, who must be aware of this alleged “fact.”

Belief in either, but especially belief in both of these things, amounts to a belief that the streets are paved with hundred dollar bills. But it’s just common sense that this isn’t the case.

Comments Off

Filed under Common Sense, Economics

Minimum RAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

So, according to the Keynesians at the CBO, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 cents an hour would cost 500 thousand jobs. That’s not some right wing talking point, that’s what they actually claim:

Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income.
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects. As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers (see Table 1).
Now, for the record, the report itself is actually quite nuanced. You can decide for yourself, for example, if it is worthwhile to increase the income of “many more” families, and the expense of those whose incomes you reduce to zero-I personally doubt they know either of those numbers with the precision necessary to say one is actually a larger number than the other. They’re still Keynesians.
But for what it is worth, it doesn’t seem like the left wing position should be that we should redistribute wealth from the very poor, to the slightly less poor.
But that is the left wing position. At least if we keep in mind that the left is not entitled to their own facts.
Predictably, the Keynesians at the CBO came under attack for their apostasy. But they are standing by their findings. Well, good on them, someone really ought to push back hard on the Administrations asinine lie that economists don’t believe that the minimum wage reduces employment for low to unskilled labor. The real truth is that since the 1990′s, a handful of econometricians-not economists but statisticians who study economic data-have published a handful of studies suggesting little such effect occurs empirically. The actual case for what happened “empirically” is not clear. But one would not be justified in throwing out textbook economics on the basis of a few studies claiming that the laws of supply and demand are magically suspended in low to unskilled labor markets. The reaction of economists should be not unlike the reaction scientists would have to someone claiming to have created a perpetual motion device: “No, you’ve obviously done something wrong.”
Let’s review, though, lest you think me some heartless ideologue, let’s review what the very laws of economics tell us the consequences of a minimum wage and raising it are.
First, what is a minimum wage? A minimum wage is a price floor. It outlaws any employment contract-with certain exceptions, which we will discuss-where the hourly wage rate is below a certain nominal value. If this floor is above the wage that would clear a labor market, then that labor market won’t clear, at least legally. The last bit is kind of an important point, which some commentators miss. It is already illegal, for example, to hire an illegal alien. However, it is not like you are doing something that will get you in significantly more trouble as an employer if you also pay illegal aliens below the minimum wage. There are no jobs Americans won’t do-there are jobs Americans aren’t allowed to do. Or more specifically, there are employment contracts Americans aren’t allowed to agree to. But I am digressing a bit. What does it mean to say that a market “won’t clear?” Well, those on the short side of market can deny trade to those on the long side, or attach conditions to trade. Or, in English, employers can refuse to employ people at the non market clearing wage. Because demand curves slope downwards and supply curves slope upward (mathematically, the derivative of quantity demanded as a function of price is less than zero, the derivative of quantity supplied as a function of price is greater than zero) there will be a large gap between the people willing to accept work at the new wage, and the actual amount of work available at the new wage. This is called “unemployment”-or at least it is, as long as the surplus labor doesn’t get the message that they might as well give up on getting a job altogether, in which case we just pretend it isn’t a problem because we suddenly no longer call it “unemployment.” It’s worth noting that certain groups will be over represent amongst those whose labor is still demanded, and those whose labor is not. Those who will be better represented in the former group: secondary/part time workers from multi-income families, entry level workers with clear potential for advancement, and young workers from working class households will probably still, mostly, see their labor still demanded. The latter group will have would be workers from the lowest income families, victims of discrimination, and single parents with young children overrepresented. In other words, the minimum wage hurts most those it is intended-or at least, claimed to be intended-to help. It cuts off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, needed more than anyone else by the most disadvantaged. The total income earned by all such workers may initially increase-it depends on the elasticity of labor demand-but it will be a redistribution of income within those in that labor market. But over time firms will substitute skilled labor and capital for unskilled labor-labor demand will become more elastic-and as a result, ultimately the total income earned by unskilled workers will go down. Now, this effect is the effect on the unskilled and some low skill labor markets, at least those which are subject to the minimum wage price floor. But actually, not every labor market for unskilled or low skilled labor is subject to the price floor. Tellingly, there is a legal exception for farm labor. This has the effect of driving those driven out of other unskilled or low skilled labor markets, into the market for farm labor-the supply curve for farm labor shifts rightward, which means that the market clearing wage for farm labor is now lower. This means that not only does the minimum wage drive many out of the unskilled and low skilled labor markets, it has the particularly perverse consequence of driving down farm wages. But this is the only way to avoid the politically unpalatable level surplus of labor that would be created if an exemption for farm labor did not exist. But the effects on other labor markets are equally telling. Unions generally support raising the minimum wage-even though union workers typically earn well above the minimum wage already. This might seem strange, since there should be no direct effect on their wages. However, union labor is typically skilled labor, and skilled and unskilled labor (or more skilled and low skilled) can be substitute inputs, which means that the imposition of or raising of a minimum wage, should increase demand for skilled labor-the demand curve for skilled labor shifts rightward. Both employment of skilled workers and their total income increases as their wages rise. In other words, higher earning skilled labor, including most union labor, gains at the expense of low earning unskilled labor. In a parallel story, because of regional cost of living differences, and because a Federal minimum wage does not factor these in, areas where prices-including wages-tend to be higher, for example, more Northern states versus Southern ones, those regions with lower wages will have the direct effect of a high minimum wage impose increased labor costs on them, but those regions with higher prices and wages will not. As such, Northern labor acts as a substitute for Southern labor, demand for the labor of higher cost of living areas increases, the total income, and the wage rate in those areas rises. But migration also shifts, as the Southern or low cost of living area workers can move more to the North or high cost of living areas (or more likely, fewer people move away from higher cost of living areas). This shifts the supply curve for high cost of living area labor rightward, somewhat offsetting both the increase unemployment in the low cost of living areas, and the income gains in the higher cost of living areas. But in net, higher cost of living regions are expected to gain at the expense of lower cost of living areas. This lines up rather well, generally, with elections maps-it’s a redistribution of income from Red States to Blue States.
Now, maybe you really think all of the above effects sound great. I certainly don’t. I find them perverse, and immoral. But then, that’s why I vehemently oppose the minimum wage.

Comments Off

Filed under Common Sense, Dumbasses, Economics, Liberals

Honk If You’re Over-Employed!

We live in an absurd world. You may be aware of a recent report-not, let’s keep in mind, from some right wing think tank, but from the Keynesians at the Congressional Budget Office-that Obamacare will lead to a very large increase in the number of people working part time instead of full time, and the CBO officials even seemed to have opened up introductory texts on actual economics saying the law creates “a disincentive to work.” In English for those of you playing at home: it destroys jobs.

Now, despite the fact that this is a government report, the government isn’t gonna take an insult to itself, from itself, lying down. The Obama administration has given the excuse that this is not due to anyone actually involuntarily losing their job, it’s due to people choosing not to work, because they never really wanted to have a job, they just had to to get health insurance.

Follow that? Millions of people won’t be working anymore, but it’s okay, they didn’t want to be working. They were over-employed because they really only wanted health insurance, not a job. In fact, the assertion amounts to a statement that the American people suffer from a chronic over employment problem.

Huh? That’s self-evidently nonsense. Of the entire population of the US, about 43% of people are employed. Of those between the ages of 15 to 64 a little less than 68% of people are employed. And keep in mind, those are people employed at all-the percentage of people with full time jobs is more like 34% and 54%, respectively. I don’t see how anyone could come to the conclusion, looking at those numbers, that too many people have to work too much.

But the assertion is, at any rate, based on the presumption (perhaps shared by the CBO) that Obamacare actually alleviates anyone’s health insurance woes. And, in alleviating these woes, it allows people to make the choices they would “naturally” chose to make, if only it weren’t for having to worry about health insurance. One might well make the argument that people could “naturally” chose not to work, if only they didn’t have to worry about eating. But there is nothing “natural” about the decisions one can make when one is able to use someone else’s income to purchase one’s health insurance-as is the case with subsidized insurance bought with the help of the government. It’s the “natural” choices the slave master can make with the fruit’s of his slave’s labor, or the “natural” choices a thief may make with his ill begotten loot. Of course, people receiving such things from the criminal gang that is the government are not themselves criminals or slave masters-that is the government. They are no more guilty of the crime itself than the thief or the slave master’s children, whom they feed with their ill gotten gains. But it is absurd and perverse in the extreme to suggest nothing untoward is going on, simply because people are responding to incentives. One might as well conclude nothing untoward is ever going on in the economy-people always respond to incentives. This doesn’t mean that incentives can’t be bad.

Comments Off

Filed under Common Sense, Dumbasses, Economics, Freedom, Healthcare

Party Reform

The Republican Party should adopt some simple rules restricting the primary process to ensure the selection of good candidates:

1. Candidates for the nomination for President of the United States on the Republican ticket shall not have held public office or resided within in the last ten years, any of the following: Any state which in the past two election cycles had a majority of it’s votes go to a non-Republican candidate for President both times, or if they are not already on that list, any of the following: Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Hawaii, or (in the interest of fairness) any state of the Old Confederacy.

2. Candidates for the nomination for President of the United States on the Republican ticket shall not have sought the nomination in any previous election cycle, and failed, nor shall any candidate who succeeded in securing the nomination be allowed to run again, unless they succeeded in the General Election.

I think these are sensible rules, they aren’t unfair or skewed. Any RINOs whining that the first rule is target at them should explain why the rule excludes Republicans from the Old Confederacy, not known to be a hotbed of moderates. Any losers whining about the second rule should get over it, they are losers.

Comments Off

Filed under elections, Republicans

A simple thought experiment to illustrate why a Government cannot facilitate exchange better than Capitalism

Suppose an economy of eleven people. In this economy, 5 people have X and want Y, 5 people have Y and want X, and there is one person who knows this (each individual party is ignorant of this fact). This person recognizes a profit opportunity: he can buy X from 5 people and Y from 5 people for, say, $4 dollars each, and sell them to the people that want them for $5 each. He makes a total profit of $2 per exchange, or $10 dollars.

Now, technically this represents an inefficiency. If we all possessed omniscience, and there was no cost to us actually getting our goods to each other, we could simply exchange with one another directly. This can be, and moreso now than ever is, resolved by technology; thanks to the internet, we can cut out the middleman more and more in our exchanges. But it must also be recognized that a perfectly efficient exchange could only be achieved by omniscient beings with unlimited power to act as the please. It is impossible in the real world. Some amount of inefficiency always exist, and where it does it represents a profit opportunity that will be exploited. In this example our choices are to let the middleman profit and each of us pay a dollar to engage in our exchanges, or not engage in the exchange at all, and not get what we want.

But what if we had the Government as the middleman? Couldn’t they do it without profiting, so we wouldn’t have to pay a dollar to get what we want? In a word, no.

The reason can be illustrated simply. Suppose the Government acted as the middleman, or more specifically, the a government employee is ordered by “the Government” to do, as his job, the facilitation of our exchanges. He is ordered to buy and sell X and Y in such a way as to make no net profit: $4 each. In net, the Government makes no profit and each of us gets what we want. However, if the Government is to do this it needs to pay the employee what he is willing to work for to facilitate the exchanges. That will be, judging from the Capitalist middleman, $2 per exchange; in other words, $10 dollars. Now, he would not be willing to do it for less than that, because he could just facilitate the exchange under the table without the Governments knowledge and make that much money. So the Government has to pay him at least that much. But the Government made no profit, so how is it to pay it’s employee’s wages? The answer is that it must raise revenue through taxation-Here the difference from Capitalism becomes interesting, because the Government can tax different people different amounts through the use of force: it can implicitly tax future people by borrowing money, it can tax everyone implicitly by inflating the currency and reducing the value of their dollars, or it can simply explicitly tax people, but at different rates. But either way it has to take the same amount of money from the people in total as the Capitalist did,  but unlike the Capitalist, who got the voluntary consent of those paying him, the Government does so with or without their consent, by force. If our Government strives to be fair, it taxes all 10 people equally (and cannot tax the employee of the government without raising his pay, because if his net pay is less than $10, he has an incentive to facilitate the exchange under the table.) The net result is that all ten people each pay a dollar to engage in the exchange, which was the same exact result achieved by the Capitalist who made a profit. We introduced a Government into this process, exchange, and we failed to improve the outcome for anyone. We could have improved the outcome for some individuals only at the expense of others (by harming them). And all this resulted from rather generous assumptions about how the Government would act. In the real world, the Government does not merely fail to improve on market outcomes, it actually does significantly worse; which is to be expected, since we assumed away that the Government would, itself, constitute a use of the 10 people’s resources and an additional cost to their exchanges. Which means that since the Government failed to improve upon the exchange process, there is no justification for having it interfere in it; if it can’t actually improve it, why should it?

Comments Off

Filed under Common Sense, Economics, Freedom, General

A Teeming Horde Of Socialists

-Or, the Capitalist Suicide Pact.

Is it the case that the restraint of free movement of people across international boundaries is, in essence, of the nature of the error of the protectionist? Is, it not the case that imposition on such free movement represents violation of the natural right of man by the State?

Resolved that these propositions are, so the citizen of the Capitalist World, fear hypocrisy, deigns it that the artificial construction of a border ought not restrain migration, and he welcomes with open arms as a brother the worker, the talent, the human resource, (for he does not make the error of the population alarmist, that more people is bad) into the nation he calls home, but which, thinking on it, he holds in no special regard, except in so far as it may be an exemplar of his capitalist ideal-and that it is not, so much the more reason to hold it in contempt.

And, being that he may occasionally dislike the results of elections, but thinking the results of human events must inevitably favor liberty in the end, he excepts democracy, perhaps hesitantly. He thinks not for a moment that, in the regions from which his new brothers come, in choosing their own governments freely they have chosen despotism, tyranny, socialism. He is, after all, not racist, to think that ideology could be genetic. He thinks, such is the product of their institutions, but our institutions favor the market-One supposes he forgets that this is not so often, his patriotism is oddly restored from his-deserved-early contempt. And more importantly, he reasons, these are Christians, and we all know how Christians vote. Oh sure, he thinks, my wife or lover may not be able to get an abortion the next time she gets pregnant, but trade will be reasonably unrestrained. He is, unaware? Perhaps, of the evidence the prevailing opinions of these folks, on the contrary, are much the opposite of the typical evangelical Christian. He attributes, instead, all the evidence of every passing election, of evidence of purposeful thought by a block of voters seeking to righteously punish the truculent. And, he says, surely if we do away with the truculent, these people will, so long as we may make the issue ours, vote more in line with their religious beliefs. Religion, not biology, determines ideology, all human history not withstanding.

And lo, political victory! He achieves his goal, and across the nullified national boundary comes the teeming horde. Wonder, glory, at the production from this labor! Huzzah, a victory for mankind, for the future! And thus, on the surface, it seems.

But things are not as they appear. Look upon those things our Capitalist Citizen holds, rightly, in contempt: government largesse swells, and strains to be supported by a tax structure that burdens exclusively the upper income earners; for now, the state of Social Security and Medicare improve, at the expense of Medicaid and welfare programs.

Never fear! The election is here! Finally in good conscience, Capitalist Citizen can support Republicanism again, having defeated the bigots and reclaimed it’s name for the Truly Righteous. And, he expects-contrary to recent evidence-that the people are generally intelligent enough to realize that socialism isn’t working. He is enthusiastic. And so election day arrives.

Disaster! Calamity! Well, on the bright side, your wife can get that abortion. It is the first electoral college unanimous election since George Washington.

Republican Crass Crusty is defeated by Democrat Hugo Vladimir Gonzalez in a landslide. The election is attributed by pundits to the Hispanic vote.

Well, an election is just an election, there will be another one. So he waits, and in the mean time the Democrats further transform the country into something he does not recognize as remotely Capitalist. They win the next election, too, and the next one.

After an entire generation of ruin, Citizen Capitalist is in despair. In his squalid, rent controlled apartment, Citizen Capitalist commits suicide, not able to face the world anymore, it’s future so dim.

Of course, in reality, he committed political suicide a generation ago.

Comments Off

Filed under Common Sense, Dumbasses, Economics, elections, Freedom, General, humor, Republicans