Contemporary History

Some Friend

George Bush has, in the past, called Russian president Vladimir Putin 'trustworthy,' 'friend,' and someone who means what he says.  At their latest meeting, however, it seemed, that Bush got a bit miffed that his buddy had stomped on his country's independent press, jailed any businessman that didn't toe the line, and stated that he believed Iran when it said it had no ambition for nukes.  Wasn't Putin listening to all of Bush's paeans to Democracy, and all of his flowery words about the innate desire for freedom?

A rational person might point out that Putin is an ex-KGB agent, meaning that he was a professional killer and liar for one of the most brutal governments in human history.  Thus, Putin's actions today show that he really hasn't changed, that he lusts for power and has no qualms about maiming and killing to consolidate it.  So maybe, this same rational person might conclude, it is a mistake to call Vladimir a buddy of ours.

Unfortunately, we have Bush and his administrators running foreign policy.  Their explanation for Putin's behavior: he's getting bad information.  He thinks Bush fired Dan Rather, and that we send Russia second-rate chicken.  So he feels justified in his actions because, hey, America does bad things, too.

I can't make this stuff up.

 

Liberals (yawn), Fish, and Social Security (Zzzz)

I rarely bother commenting on the blather of liberals, because shooting down their arguments is about as riveting as shooting fish in a barrel. Big, ugly, bitter, angry fish. But "saving" Social Security is the hot topic of the day, and the fish feel the need to flop around while FDR's most famous socialist program is being discussed.

Take Paul Krugman's op-ed in the New York Times. His argument is based on an obvious evasion of the nature of Social Security, with some Finance 101 terms to provide some window dressing.

First, let's look at the window dressing. Yes, if you forgo a 3% return, you have to earn more than 3% to make it worth your time. If Social Security were a risk-free investment giving that annual return, this would be relevant.

Now, let's look at the evasion: Social Security is not an investment. It is a Ponzi scheme.  People paying in today only have a hope: the hope that the generations after will have enough to tax for future payouts. There is no guaranteed return. The 3% is just what the scheme has payed out so far, on average. (For a thorough, well-written devastation of Social Security, read Alex Epstein's essay.)

None of this should be a revelation to anyone, and it should be blindingly obvious for an economist like Dr. Krugman. Yet he writes his whole op-ed on the premise that Social Security is some sort of assured, unending font of money being tinkered with by dolts.

 See why I rarely bother? This isn't even fun.

 [Note: I am NOT in any way endorsing Bush's program. Why his idea stinks requires a separate post.  I may write that post.  But I may not.  It is just as uninteresting to shoot at cowardly, big-talking fish with a penchant for dark-age mysticism.]