politicalcivility.com Blog

For global warming advocates, history only works one way, meaning when it’s helpful.  But I’ve often noticed that when it’s inconvenient, either they ignore history or talk about it’s irrelevance.

The Case of the Mystery “Warming Island”

In early 2007, the greenland “mystery” island made headlines and was seen as the global icon for the movement.  The island was clear and convincing evidence the global warming was real and we were causing it.  (See http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/23/greenland.melting/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail or http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/16/news/warm.php).

There is one small problem with all their assertions.  The “Warming Island” was actually an island back in the 50s, but Greenland got colder for the next 30-40 years, and so the waterway froze over again as it had in past weather cycles.

It is time we start holding these scientists to a far higher standard of research and stop giving them the benefit of the doubt until they begin to prove they are respectable scientists willing to submit their research to the highest of standards and critiques.

Here’s the ppt (http://politicalcivility.com/warming_island.ppt) which outlines the coast line of Greenland and the history of Warming Island and another hole in the dam of the global warming advocates. 

The Utah quarter is finally out, but as Paul Harvey would say…”And now the rest of the story.”

History of Railroad Construction

I find it rather ironic that Utah/Gov. Huntsman choose a symbol that represents one of the worst cases of government waste in US History.  While the “golden” spike put Utah on the map so to speak, the building of the transcontinental railroad should serve as a grave reminder not as a point of celebration.

A Few Facts About The Railroad

1. Paralell Lines: North Pacific (NP) and Central Pacific (CP) were paid for how many miles of track they laid, so the line that built the most rails got the most cash.  For awhile in Utah the two companies were laying and getting paid for tracks that were being built parallel to each other, which of course cost taxpayers additional millions of dollars.
2. Free Land: The two companies were given more than 44,000,000 acres of free land to build the railroad. Assuming and average of $4.00 per acre (the going rate at the time), CP and NP received a $401 Billion (in today’s dollars) land subsidy.  Arguably one of the largest government handouts in the history of America.
3. Huge Loans: CP and NP also received more than $61,000,000 dollars ($139 Billion in today’s dollars).
4. Bloodshed: Competition was so fierce amongst the two railroads that war literally ensued as many lives were lost on account of a series of attacks each company carried out on the other’s employees.
5. Repairs: In the first year alone, repairs for the “newly” built railroad cost the taxpayers in excess of 113 Million (today’s dollars) to repair the line, because CP and NP had built the railroad so poorly.
6. Bankrupt: Despite all the corporate welfare these two companies received, at the end of the building of the railroad, both companies were nearly bankrupt.  The subsidies, during the building, hid the waste and corruption and lack of good management of these two companies.

The list could go on.  Some sources estimate that the building of the transcontinental railroad actually cost 3x the numbers I have listed here.

Now that’s something to be proud about.  Maybe the golden spike should have ended up on the $1,000 bill instead of the quarter.  At least then it would better represent the largesse needed to build our government funded landmark: The Transcontinental Railroad.

—–

Sources:

1. “The Myth of the Robber Barons,” by Burton Folsom.  He gives a lot more detail about how corrupt this process was and also highlights how another rail line in the Northwest was built privately, cost significantly less (even though they used far superior build supplies) and without any government help.  This line also charged less, was more efficient in getting goods from East to West, and paid its shareholders handsomely.
2. http://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/

Realtors and city planners are in love with “smart growth,” but their pet policy project may be one of the two main reasons (in addition to bad lending practices) that have pushed the housing market over the top here in Utah and around the country.

Why smart growth?  Like most governmental restrictions or regulation policies, smart growth creates artificial scarcity and so changes the demand curve for housing.  Don’t believe me.  Take a look at recent article issued by SmartMoney.  In the data chart it lists major metropolitain areas of which 4 Utah areas made the list.

Here’s the data:

• Logan: % overvalued = 17%
• Ogden: % overvalued = 17%
• Provo: % overvalued = 34%
• SLC: % overvalued = 30%
• St. George: % overvalued 53%

These are based off the median home prices as of Q2 2007.  Unfortuately just another example of an interest group partnering with the government to sell Utahns a promise “affordability” and delivering just the opposite.  All the while, realtors make record profits on the backs of hard working Utahns.  I guess it’s just another classic example of what Burton Folsom terms as the political entrepreneurs working the system to line their own pockets, all the while portending to be “true capitalists.” 

Maybe its time Utahns start doing a bit more homework to understand what conservative policy as it pertains to “smart” growth really looks like and start holding reatlors, developers and politicians accountable for the backroom dealing that is undermining a true free market in Utah.

The redistribution of wealth is a key compenent of the socialist/communist platform.  This idea or its justification is the result of a distorted definition of equality, namely that the fruits of my labors are just as equally my neighbors as they are mine, whether or not my neighbor has participated in helping me attain those fruits or provided any of his fruits to me.  When you boil redistribution of wealth down it is the legalization of coveting and as such represents weakness in character and offends every sense of fairness one can posses.

 One of the banner methods of redistribution of wealth is the death tax, which FDR implemented back in the 30’s.  Up to this point, it has been a class warfare tool the left has used to punish those who save and refuse to rely on social security and the government to take care of me during retirement.  But more and more now, people on both sides of the isle are beginning to have second thoughts about this form of taxation.  The most recent advocate for the abolition of the death tax: Whoopi Goldberg.

From the WSJ:

“I’d like somebody to get rid of the death tax.  That’s what I want.  I don’t want to get taxed just because I died…I just don’t think it’s right.  If I give something to my kid, I already paid the tax.  Why should I have to pay it again because I died?”

Whoopi’s co-host tried to play the class warfare card repsonding, “Only people with a lot of money say that.”  To which Whoopi responded:

No, I don’t think so…It doesn’t matter if you have or don’t have money.  Once you paid your taxes, it should be a done deal.  You shouldn’t have to pay twice.”

Amen Whoopi. Amen.

Private Property (Ownership)

I think one of the best philosophical summaries of this principle came from former P&G CEO, William Cooper Procter, when he explained the rationale of the profit sharing program he implemented in the late 1800’s.  Procter felt that in making the employees owners of the company that the “interests of the company and employee” would be inseparably connected.  So as they became owners they would be less likely to cut corners, cheat or do unethical things because they would be damaging their “property.”  With this “ownership” philosophy P&G has become one of the largest companies in the world, and I can tell you from having worked there that I’ve never worked for a company where people watched the stock so closely or talked more about how what they were doing was going to help the company and mean it.

Obviously Procter understood something about human nature.  By creating ownership, Procter created a keen sense of stewardship amongst employees.  Waste, corruption, etc. wouldn’t be tolerated because employees had a vested interest to maximize and take care of company resources.  Employees policed themselves.

The flipside of this is government ownership (socialism, communism, etc.) where we as citizens are essentially renters.  In this scenario there is no incentive to conserve, protect, etc. because I have no vested interest.  Living in Russia for two years really opened my eyes to the evils to business, the environment, the individual and to the country when government was the sole proprietor versus millions of individual owners.

Here’s an interesting question in closing: if you were buying a used car and had the choice between two cars, which were exactly the same make, model, color, price, etc., where one was from a rental agency (budget, avis, enterprise, etc.) or one from your meticulous next door neighbor, which one do you buy?  If you chose the second, congratulations you understand the value of private property.  If you chose the first, remind me not to drive in the same car with you. 

—-

An interesting side note here is that those pushing global warming energy policies should be extending ownership and private property if they’re really serious about making the earth more eco friendly.

Sorry to jump off on that, but it just had to come out.