Meet Adam Smith

.

Let's cut through the propaganda and myths: Capitalism is not wholly synonymous with free enterprise; making money is not necessarily the same thing as creating wealth; Wall Street and government at all levels are but flip sides of the same power structure; the big-time money makers behind the scenes who finance the careers of political leaders and, in fact, write for them the laws that make their parasitical dealings legal are not entrepreneurs in the true sense of the word.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations exposed and warned against the kind of corrupt laws and customs that in his day stifled free markets. Unfortunately, few mass media pundits nowadays have read the book or, if they have, deliberately ignore its message, latching instead on the author's "invisible hand" metaphor, quite out of context, to justify the unbridled greed of making money for its own sake. They conveniently fail to mention that Adam Smith was by profession a moral philosopher, not the amoral economist that he has been portrayed to be, as is clearly evident in his other classic, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

It may be argued that though the well-lawyered, executives of AIG, the “Billionaire Club” of Lehman Brothers and others of their ilk ruined their companies, they nonetheless contributed to the nation's economic wellbeing. Maybe the crumbs they left behind after they gorged themselves was profit enough for the shareholders. But you who side with them please do not denigrate the good name of Adam Smith by claiming they were only acting in accordance with the laws of supply and demand.

e-mail Author

False Risk Takers

.

Big-time corporate executives have perpetrate the myth that the multimillion dollar bonuses they rake in are due compensation for the extraordinary risks they take. Do not be fooled. To begin with, the money they take those risks with is not their money. It’s the stockholders.’And even when they bring their companies to ruin, as was the case with AIG and Lehman Brothers, they still get their bonuses up front. Moreover, if their companies happen to be “too big to fail,” then the Federal Government, i.e. we, the U.S. taxpayers, bail them out. Small shop owners on Main Street who rely on bank loans and their own lifesavings to keep their businesses afloat are the ones who take the real risks. The big Wall Street bonus makers take no risks at all. What they really do is gamble with other people’s money and, win or lose, they always profit. And thanks to their high-paid lobbyist and entrenched political connections, it's perfectly legal. Legalized thievery is the correct term for it.

e-mail Author

Legalize Drugs

.

As William Buckley, Milton Friedman and other clear-thinkers suggested 40 years ago, the only way to win the so-called war on drugs is to preclude it by legalizing the drugs. Recall the crime and corruption fueled by Prohibition in the 1920's. Given the insatiable multi-billion dollar demand for drugs in this country, you can be sure that the demand will be met somehow, at whatever the risks or costs. Nothing can stop the "invisible hand" of the free marketplace from doing its work. Of course, they who make a living keeping the drugs illegal--local cops, the Feds, sanctimonious politicians, talk-show hosts, drug lords, gun dealers, etc--would lobby hard against any move to legalize drugs. But the taxpayer footing the bill for the open-ended war on drugs would benefit greatly. Indeed, the tax revenue generated from legalization and the legitimate jobs created by legalization would go a long way to help to alleviating the current recession. And there's no reason to fear that legalizing drugs will spawn more drug abuse, anymore that the repeal of Prohibition added more alcoholics to the number that already existed when Prohibition was in effect.

e-mail Author

We're Still on Top

.

Despair not my fellow Americans. China may be surging ahead of us in construction, manufacturing and solar power, but--Hey!--we still lead the world in the creation of hedge funds, financial derivatives, credit default swaps and legal services.

e-mail Author

Paul the Anti-Christ

Read the Gospels carefully. Jesus, clearly, did not intend to create a church. The Kingdom of God, he said, lies "within you" (Luke 17:21). You don't need intermediaries to show you the way to Heaven. All you needed to do is believe in him. His apostles were not professional priests or theologians. Their mission was to spread his Gospel, not by preaching, but by example: "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:16) Preaching was Jesus' job alone, and he had already done all the preaching that was necessary. As described by those who knew him personally, his ministry was largely a condemnation of the organized religion of his time. When he died on the cross, the curtain to the Holies of Holies, the exclusive domain of the high priest, was rent. (Matthew 27:51)"

But then enter Paul of Tarsus, claiming to have been visited in a vision and ordained by Christ to speak on his behalf, rebuking the true apostle Peter, praising Christ on the one hand while on the other confounding his simple message, elliptically telling the faithful that they were spiritually unqualified to comprehend its mysteries, denouncing intellectual curiosity, fomenting guilt, making people feel sinful so he could save them; in effect, resurrecting the priesthood, restoring the Holy of Holies, fabricating a new church and thereby laying the foundation for the collective fanaticism that gave rise the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch hunts and other crimes against humanity perpetrated in the name of a loving Christ.

In 1 John, the writer, like Peter, an apostle who had known Jesus personally, alludes to a rift that had developed among believers and to the existence of an Anti-Christ that "is now already in the world" distorting the teachings of Christ. And in Revelation (19:20) the same writer (?) depicts him as a false prophet meant to be destroyed and cast into the fires of Hell.

Seems that this Anti-Christ was none other than the self-anointed apostle Paul. What better way for the Anti-Christ to insinuate himself than by becoming a writer of the New Testament? What better way to keep the faithful duped and disoriented for two millennia?"

But then, on second thought, Paul may have been right. At the gut level, the mass of humankind prefers the security of a well-organized group, however despotic, to the risks inherent in personal freedom—-the old herd instinct. Maybe by recasting Christ as a leader rather than a liberator the tentmaker from Tarsus saved Christianity from extinction.

e-mail Author

Dumb, Dumb War

.

Now that we've terminated the Taliban honcho, Mehsud, does that mean that for all practical purposes the Afghanistan war is over? Can we start bringing our troops home? Of course not. You can be sure that scores of other would-be honchos are waiting in the wings to take his place, and the conflict will rage on, stronger than ever. And ditto with Osama bin Laden. Capturing or killing him, as our new President has promised he'd do, would be pointless. It should be quite clear by now that we are not fighting a conventional, high tech-army with a well-organized chain of command. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, the Jihadists, the Insurgents, or whatever else you want to call them, operate in small units largely ignorant of one another. (Not unlike the Russian Mafia) Arrest members of one unit and no amount of interrogation can extract from them reliable information on the whereabouts or next move of other units. And it should further be clear that low-tech terrorist cells like the 9/11 highjackers need not be trained in Afghanistan. They could just as readily be trained in Somalia, Indonesia, the jungles of Ecuador or in abandoned factory in Gary Indiana. We need, of course, to be protected from fanatics bent on terrorizing our cities, but that job can only done by Federal, state and local agencies working in unison, as is happening now. It's not a military matter.

If Bush's Iraq war was a mistake, then Obama's war in Afghanistan is a catastrophic blunder. The billions wasted chasing an elusive, protean enemy over mountainous terrain and bribing incredibly corrupt Afghan and Pakistani government officials under the guise of "foreign aid" would be better invested dealing with the mounting economic and social problems here at home. Then there is the huge moral issue of loss of life and limb by our brave soldiers, their allies, and innocent civilians. Or is there other stff going on behind the scenes that we the people are not supposed to know?

e-mail Author

The Lord's Solution

.

Question: Who, exactly, are we rescuing with these billion dollar bailouts and tax breaks? The average wage earner, the main-street consumer, the small business owner, local banks, our manufacturing and service industries--i.e., the creators of real wealth? Or are we coming to the rescue of hedge fund moguls, rapacious CEO’s and Wall Street speculators--i.e., the parasitical makers of money for its own sake?

Myth has it that both camps are integral parts of the great, all-American, free-market system: But, as the currently economic crisis has clearly shown, they are not. The true creators of wealth cannot possibly thrive until freed from the tentacles of parasites masquerading as entrepreneurs. Before I endorse any Federal stimulus plan with my vote, I’d like to know exactly whose side our Government is on.

Recall how the only time that Jesus lost his cool was when he drove the money changers out the Temple, with a whip he fashioned himself.

e-mail Author