Anchor/Passport Babies proof that People wished Britain/America had conquered the World

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 8th, 2014

Week in Review

The problem with a generous welfare state and porous borders is that they attract a lot of foreign-born people to your country to cash in on those generous welfare benefits.  Some even make the journey while pregnant so their child is born in the country with the generous welfare benefits.  And not the cruel, cold-hearted benefit-free country they are escaping.  Giving them an ‘anchor’ in the country they’d much rather live in than the country they don’t want to live in.  Their native country.

The United States has a porous border with Mexico.  And many Mexicans give birth in the United States while in the country illegally just so their child doesn’t have to grow up in Mexico.  Which when you think about is a statement on how these Mexicans feel about the ‘imperial’ United States.  They must really hate them for not taking the rest of Mexico when they won the Mexican War.  Had the Americans done so there would be no need for anchor babies.  For they would already be enjoying American citizenship south of the Rio Grande.  Based on the number of Mexicans entering America illegally, at least.

The United States isn’t the only country people want to live in.  Canada, too, is a beautiful country with a generous welfare state.  The winters are a little colder, though.  But that doesn’t stop people from trying to become Canadian citizens with anchor babies.  Only they call them ‘passport babies’ in Canada (see Canadian citizenship bill to be tabled Thursday by Susana Mas posted 2/2/2014 on CBC News).

Alexander said the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act would also aim to reduce the current backlog of applications and change the conditions for eligibility.

The government is also considering changes to tackle the problem of so-called “birth tourism” or “passport babies,” but Alexander told CBC News they would not be included in this bill.

Americans and Canadians aren’t better people.  They just live in countries that allow their people to be better.  Which is the problem in Mexico.  Not the people.  As the Americas were colonized Britain was further along in representative government than Spain.  Free market capitalism replaced mercantilism quicker in British America than it did in Spanish America.  And democratic institutions were more developed in British America than they were in Spanish America.  Such that the foundation for representative government, free market capitalism and democracy was more robust in British American than it was in Spanish America.

Because of this when the Americans gained their independence great peace and prosperity followed.  A first following a civil war.  Allowing America and Canada (later granted their independence from the British Empire) to be lands of opportunity.  With strong human rights.  Ironically, in large part to the School of Salamanca.  One of the greatest gifts Spain gave to the world.  Which is why people want to have their babies born in these countries.  So they can be as great as they want to be.  Because only representative government, free market capitalism and democracy can make this possible.  At least based on history.

But you can’t have people entering your country unchecked.  Especially if they’re coming for the benefits.  And your country has annual deficits and a growing national debt.  For adding more people to the benefits roll when you can’t afford it will transform the country from that land of opportunity people want to come to into the country they are fleeing.  Countries with high spending and devalued currencies that lead to black markets and lawlessness.  The very things people want to get away from by having their babies in the United States and Canada.



FT175: “Illegal US immigration tells us that the people of the world want more American imperialism.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 21st, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Communists built the Berlin Wall to keep her People from Fleeing their Communist Utopia

The West is the best.  Based on history.  The Cold War was East versus West.  The Soviet Union and communist Eastern Europe faced off with NATO forces on the other side of the Iron Curtain.  And all during the Cold War people tried to escape from behind the Iron Curtain into the West.  Where there was no secret police.  And a life of plenty.  Instead of the life of poverty and perpetual want of the most basic of necessities behind the Iron Curtain.  Which is why these people wanted to escape to the West.

Of course, that posed a problem for countries behind the Iron Curtain.  If too many of their best and brightest escaped to the West the resulting brain drain would hurt their economies.  Reduce the quality of their health care systems.  Retard their scientific research.  Diminish innovation.  Leaving these countries frozen in time.  While the West went on to create the modern world.  If you visited East Germany in 1950 and again in 1960 and again in 1970 you would not have noticed great change.  At least not anything near the kind of change you saw in West Germany.

This was a problem in Berlin.  For although Berlin was wholly within East Germany the city itself was divided between East and West.  And life was so much better across the street in West Berlin than it was in East Berlin.  There were blue jeans.  Transistor radios.  Televisions.  People just had to walk across the street and claim asylum.  Board an airplane and fly away from the soul-sucking life of East Germany.  And they, too, could have all of those wonderful things.  As well as a full tummy.  For the West could feed their people far better than they could behind the Iron Curtain.  Which is why the communists built the Berlin Wall.  Not to keep people out of their communist utopia.  But to keep their people from fleeing it.

If Teddy Roosevelt didn’t give Cuba back to the Cubans there would have been no ‘Boat People’

The Soviet Union and their satellite countries behind the Iron Curtain are no more.  For the East lost the Cold War.  Thanks to Ronald Reagan.  And Margaret Thatcher.  Who decided to no longer accommodate the East’s belligerence.  Instead of detente they chose to win the Cold War.  For they saw what communism was.  An economic system on life support.  The Soviet Union could not even feed her people without U.S. grain.  Despite having Europe’s breadbasket on their side of the Iron Curtain.  The Ukraine.  So they pushed.  Hard.  Spent more money on defense that the Soviet economy simply couldn’t match.  Ultimately breaking the back of the Soviet economy.

That’s right.  The West won the Cold War by living well.  The economies of the West, in particular of the United States, were so strong that it could build the Strategic Defense Initiative (i.e., Star Wars) and still provide a life of plenty for their people.  Which is why whenever someone living behind the Iron Curtain had a chance to defect to the West they did.  It’s the dream of oppressed people everywhere to escape to the West.  Especially to the United States.  For when it comes to freedom and a high quality of life this is the ultimate destination.  The United States.

When Fidel Castro turned Cuba communist people made ramshackle rafts to escape Cuba.  Hoping to get to the United States.  Where life was so much better.  These ‘boat people’ no doubt wished the United States had kept Cuba when Spain ceded Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam to the U.S.  For a large sum of money after losing the Spanish-American War.  Spain left Cuba to the Americans, too, at the same time.  But Teddy Roosevelt gave Cuba back to the Cubans.  Which ultimately brought Fidel Castro to power.  Creating those ‘boat people’ trying to escape his rule.  Whereas had the United States kept Cuba it could be more like Puerto Rico or Guam today.  Western.  Where people wouldn’t board ramshackle rafts to get to the West.  Because they would have already been living in the West.

The Ideas of the Enlightenment took Root in America and Flourished better than in all other Countries

Prior to the Spanish-American War there was the Mexican-American War.  Where the Americans fought the Mexicans who had just recently won their independence from Spain.  What started out as a war over Texas ended with a treaty (and a cash payment to Mexico as well as assumption of some of her debt) giving the United States not only Texas but California and what is approximately today the southeast United States.  Moving the southern border of the U.S. south.  But apparently not far enough south.  At least, based on the illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States.

Life across the border in the United States is better than it is in Mexico.  Based on those who leave Mexico and cross into the United States illegally.  Who wouldn’t be doing this if life was better in Mexico than in the United States.  Suggesting that these immigrants would have been happier had the United States pushed their southern border all the way to Mexico’s southern border at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War.  So that Mexico would have been part of the U.S.  Allowing them to enjoy living in the United States.  Without being in the country illegally.

So while people speak out against American imperialism what this immigration tells us is that there was not enough American imperialism.  For if the United States had made most of the world a part of the United States then these people would not have to immigrate here.  For they would already be here.  For whatever reason the ideas of the Enlightenment took root here in America and flourished.  Better than in all other countries.  Making her the leader of the Western World.  And the ultimate destination of oppressed and impoverished people everywhere.



President Obama is OK with Food Assistance for Illegal Immigrants but wanted to charge Legal Border Crossers a Toll

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 12th, 2013

Week in Review

Does the Obama administration have a spending problem?  Or a revenue problem?  Well, according to an article in the Examiner, since Obama has been president the food stamp program (SNAP) has “increased at 10 times the rate of job creation, the annual spending on SNAP has doubled, and one in seven Americans now participates in SNAP.”   The USDA even sent a Spanish-language flyer to the Mexican Embassy “advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.”

The Obama administration is giving away so much food assistance that the treasury will soon be unable to borrow money fast enough to pay for it.  Showing a real spending problem.  And a love for illegal immigrants living in the country.  Or who would like to live in the country.  Basically throwing open our southern border.  While at the same time President Obama wants to make Mexicans and Canadians crossing the border legally pay a toll (see U.S. Senate nixes planned U.S.-Canada border tolls by Paul Koring posted 5/10/2013 on The Globe and Mail).

Obama administration plans to impose a toll on land travellers crossing the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico were scrapped Thursday.

The proposed toll, which sparked angry responses on both sides of the borders, was blocked in a rare show of bipartisan unanimity by Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate…

It effectively killed a Homeland Security suggestion contained in Mr. Obama’s proposed budget that tolls on pedestrian and vehicular traffic crossing the Canada-U.S. and Mexico-U.S. borders be considered as a means of raising revenues for the cash-strapped federal government.

When the president wants to make people pay for the privilege of crossing our border to spend their money in our economy it’s time to admit you have a spending problem.

It is interesting that the Department of Homeland Security wants more money to secure the border when they continue to refuse to secure the border.  Which seems to be more of a policy decision than a cost factor.  Especially when the USDA is telling illegal immigrants that they can get food assistance without being able to speak English or prove that they are a legal citizen.

Bridges and tunnels need maintenance.  Which is why we charge tolls at river-crossings.  But we don’t charge tolls at land-crossings.  To do so would add a tariff to cross-border trade.  Violating the North American Free Trade Agreement.  As well as defeating the purpose of a free trade agreement.  To encourage cross-border trade.

The problem is with America’s southern border.  Making Canadians pay for the problems at our southern border would be unfair to say the least.

President Obama has a spending problem.  And he needs to fix that problem by cutting spending.  Not by raising taxes everywhere and on everyone.  Higher taxes and a less friendly business environment destroy economic activity.  And he should know this.  As he had a front-row seat for his destructive economic policies that have created the worst recovery since that following the Great Depression.  And yet all he ever comes up with is more of the same failed policies of the past.  It’s as if he just tries them one more time they will have a different outcome.  Which is either a sign of insanity.  Or of someone that puts politics before all else.



FT119: “To save American jobs the Left tries to keep out low-priced Mexican imports but does little to keep out low-priced Mexican labor.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 25th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Left opposes Cheap Mexican Labor in Mexico but they like having it in the U.S.

One of the more interesting things about the political left is their inconsistency about their opposition to free trade.  They opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) because they said all the good manufacturing jobs would go south of the border.  They said Mexicans work too cheap.  And that was unfair to the American worker.  For the American’s generous wage and benefit packages could never compete with the Mexicans who are willing to work for so much less.  With NAFTA rich American capitalists would just screw their American employees and move their operations to Mexico.  Where they would exploit the poor hapless Mexican workers.  Forcing them to work at a fraction of the American wage and benefit package.

Of course that’s not the way the poor hapless Mexican workers see it.  They loved those manufacturing jobs.  Because those jobs had some of the most generous wage and benefit packages available in Mexico.  They flooded those factories.  And the lucky few to get those jobs did quality work.  The things they made in these Mexican plants were as good as anything in the U.S.  And they cost less.  Allowing the American consumer to buy more.  Which raised the standard of living for everyone.  The American consumer.  And the Mexican consumer.  The only ones who lost were the few working in those U.S. plants that closed.  Who became bitter.  And demanded the government impose tariffs on those low-cost imports.  To save American jobs.  While lowering the standard of living for the American consumer.  And the Mexican consumer.

So the Left opposes this cheap Mexican labor.  In Mexico.  They don’t seem to mind it so much, on the other hand, when it’s in the U.S.  The Left opposes building a wall on the border.  They oppose asking for proof of citizenship from anyone who looks Mexican in a region with a high concentration of illegal aliens.  They oppose requiring a photo I.D. to vote.  They oppose deportations of illegal aliens who’ve been living and working in the U.S.  While they are in favor of blanket amnesty for those here illegally.  And providing them a fast-track to U.S. citizenship.  Which is rather odd considering the way the Left feels about that cheap Mexican labor.  So why are they opposed to imports manufactured by low-cost labor while they are in favor of bringing that low-cost labor into the United States.  For either way it will displace a higher-paid U.S. worker from a job.

The Lost Tax Revenue from Abortion and Birth Control comes to about $155 Billion per Year 

 Yes, that is a good question, isn’t it?  Some, I’m sure, will say once those illegals become legals they’ll join unions.  Which would make them no longer cheap labor.  Perhaps.  But with the decline in U.S manufacturing there aren’t a lot of union jobs anymore.  It is more likely that they will go to where there are good manufacturing jobs.  In the nonunion South.  So it is likely they would add further pressure on those high union wages and benefits.  So why, then, would the Left want to grant citizenship to those here illegally while at the same time opposing cheap Mexican labor?  Two reasons.  Abortions.  And birth control. 

As it is in most things in life it’s about the money.  The Left likes to tax and spend.  Well, not so much like but love.  It’s what they live for.  They want to spend money to provide pensions.  Health care in retirement.  And now health care before retirement.  They want to spend money to end poverty.  They want to spend money to give everyone a college education.  They want to spend money to subsidize green energy.  They want to spend money for school lunches, childcare, art, public television/radio, birth control, abortions, etc.  If it’s something they can spend money on they want to spend money on it.  Of course to spend all of this money you need what?  That’s right.  Money.  And two of the Left’s defining issues have actually reduced the available money to spend.  Birth control and abortion.

According to Public Agenda the number of abortions increased during the Seventies until they totaled approximately 1,300,000 by the end of the decade.  They stayed at or above this level for a little over a decade and then started falling in the late Nineties.  Let’s take one year of these numbers and crunch some numbers.  If 1.3 million abortions didn’t happen and the women carried these babies to term and they earned the median income of $46,000 (and paid $7,530 in federal income taxes) today that would have come to an additional $8.4 billion in tax revenue per year.

According to the Guttmacher Institute there were 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15-44) in 2010.  Approximately 62% of these women were currently using birth control.  Bringing the number of women using birth control in 2010 to 38,440,000.  If birth control was unavailable let’s assume 50% of these women would have stopped having sex.  And let’s assume the women who continued to have sex became pregnant and carried their pregnancy to term.  Bringing in 19,220,000 new babies into the world.  Based on the median salary of $46,000 they would have contributed another $145 billion in tax revenue.  Added to the lost tax revenue from abortion that comes to a grand total of $155 billion in lost tax revenue per year.  Over a decade that comes to $1.5 trillion.

Granting Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens can make up for Lost Tax Revenue due to Birth Control and Abortion 

During the Obamacare debates the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the cost of Obamacare over a 10-year period at $940 billion.  They have since revised that up to $1.76 trillion.  The opponents of Obamacare say it is too costly.  With a national debt of already $15.7 trillion we simply can’t afford to pay for Obamacare.  The proponents of Obamacare have been using questionable accounting practices to get that number down.  Such as collecting new taxes before paying any benefits in some of those years in that 10-year projection.  But the interesting thing to note here is that these discussions would be moot had it not been for birth control and abortion.  Which has cost the nation in tax revenue what Obamacare will cost.

These numbers are only crude calculations.  A more detailed mathematical analysis would have produced a far greater number in lost tax revenue.  Because the population would have also been expanding.  So the numbers used as constants in the 10-year projections above would have been growing larger in each year of that 10-year projection.  And producing larger amounts of tax revenue in each of those 10 years.  This is why Social Security worked so well for the first few decades.  There was a growing population.  And there was always far more new workers entering the workforce than leaving it.  What changed that was birth control and abortion.  And people choosing to have smaller families.  Not a bad thing in itself.  But this decision to have smaller families has doomed Social Security and Medicaid.  For they created those programs based on larger population growth rates.  That simply no longer exist.  And the only way to fix that is by having a lot more babies quickly.  Or for the baby boomers to die off quicker.  Which critics of Obamacare say Obamacare will help do via death panels.

Or you could try something else.  You can jumpstart the population growth rate by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.  To make up for lost tax revenue due to birth control and abortion.  And what makes the illegals from Mexico so attractive to the Left is that many of them are devout Catholics.  Thanks to the Catholic Spanish Empire who brought their language, culture and religion to the New World.  And Catholics frown upon the use of abortion and birth control.  But this can be a risky bet for those on the Left.  Yes, they could really boost the population growth rate.  And they may get these new citizens’ votes in the early years out of gratitude.  But eventually the Left’s attacks on religion may eventually make these people vote Republican.  So they may get a large increase in tax revenue to spend.  Just as they lose power in Washington.



Mercantilism, Royal Navy, Napoleon, Pax Britannica, Corn Laws, David Ricardo, Comparative Advantage, European Union and NAFTA

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 22nd, 2012

History 101

Mercantilism gave Britain the Royal Navy which Ushered in the Pax Britannica

Great Britain had a rough go of it at the end of the 18th century.  They lost their American colonies in the American Revolutionary War.  A war that started over the issue of taxation to pay for the previous Seven Years’ War.  So instead of securing new revenue to pay down old debt they incurred new debt.  The French Revolution closed out the century.  Causing concern for some in Britain that their monarchy may be the next to fall.  It didn’t.  For the constitutional monarchy and representative government in Britain was a long cry from the absolute monarchy that they had in France.  So revolution did not come to Britain.  But war did.  As the French expanded their revolution into a European war.  Pulling the British back into war with their old enemy.

With a large conscripted French Army and the concept of total war France made total war.  Napoleon Bonaparte won a lot of battles.  Conquered much of Europe.  Even marched back and conquered Paris.  Proclaimed himself emperor of France.  And continued waging war.  Including an ill-conceived invasion of Russia.  Which marked the beginning of the end for Napoleon.  And the French Empire.  Weakened from war France saw her old nemesis, Great Britain, rise as the first superpower since the Roman Empire.  And like the Romans’ Pax Romana Britain entered a century of peace.  Pax Britannica.

The reason the British could do this was because of their mercantile past.  They set up colonies and international trade networks.  And they used the proceeds from that lucrative trade to finance the greatest naval power then in the world.  The Royal Navy.  And the Royal Navy would help keep the peace in the Pax Britannica.  She became the world’s policeman.  Making the world safe for trade.  Especially on the high seas.  But then something interesting happened.  She broke from her mercantile past.  Because they saw the shortcomings of mercantilism.  One of which produced wealthy landowners at the expense of a hungry population.

When the British repealed the Corn Laws in 1846 Food Prices fell and the Standard of Living Rose 

The British Corn Laws were a series of laws protecting those who grew cereal crops.  The stuff we grow that has edible grains.  Corn, rice, wheat, barley, etc.  What we call staple crops as they form the basic sustenance of humans everywhere.  We grow these in greater abundance than all other foods.  And when you look at the grain size you come to one realization.  It takes a lot of land to grow these crops.  And who owns large tracts of land?  The landowning aristocracy.  A small group of people with a lot of wealth.  And a lot of political influence.  Hence the Corn Laws. 

The Corn Laws were legislation with one goal.  To prevent the British people from buying less expensive food.  By either forbidding any importation of cheaper grains until the domestic price had reached a certain price level.  Or adding tariffs to the less expensive imports so the landowners could still sell their grains at higher prices.  Thus preserving their wealth.  And they made specious arguments about how lower-priced food was actually bad for the people.  For it was just a way for manufacturers to maximize their profits.  For if food was cheaper they could pay their workers less.  Being the greedy bastards that they were.  So the only fair thing to do was to keep food prices high.  To keep the living wage high.  To force manufacturers to pay their workers more.  You see, the only way to help the poor and middle class was to let the wealthy landowners become even wealthier.  By keeping the price of the food they sold high.

Opposition grew to the Corn Laws.  People studied the works of their fellow countrymen.  Adam Smith and David Hume (both Scottish).  And the Englishman David Ricardo.  All great economists and thinkers.  Who were all proponents of free trade.  Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage basically proved the case of free trade over the protectionism of mercantilism.  Eventually the political power of the landowners could not overcome the economic arguments.  Or a famine in Ireland.  And, in 1846, they repealed the Corn Laws and adopted free trade.  Food prices fell.  Leaving people with more disposable income.  To purchase the goods the Industrial Revolution was making.  Increasing their standard of living.  While small famers had to leave their farms being unable to farm efficiently enough to pay their bills at the prevailing prices.

The Success of NAFTA proves David Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage

Mercantilists and other opponents to free trade like to point at the human costs.  Small farmers losing their farm.  Just so they can preserve some semblance of privilege to protect the high prices in their industry.  But it was becoming more and more difficult to make the argument that the masses were better off paying higher prices.  Because they’re not.  Lower consumer prices increase the standard of living for everyone.  Higher living standards create healthier living conditions.  And reduces child mortality.   For the greatest killer of children in the world is poverty.

The British were both a military and an economic superpower during the 19th century.  But someone was chasing her.  The Untied States.  Who was feeling her economic oats.  Her economy would catch up and surpass the British.  Making it the mightiest economic power of all time.  How did this happen?  Two words.  Free trade.  The United States was the largest free trade zone in the world.  The economic advantages of all those states trading with each other freely across their state borders made Europe stand up and take notice.  And in response created treaties that ultimately led to the European Union and the Eurozone.  To replicate the large free trade zone of the United States.

Back across the Atlantic the Americans, Canadians and the Mexicans took it up a notch.  And created the North American Free Trade Agreement.  NAFTA.  Extending the free trade that existed in each of their countries across their international borders.  The mercantilist fought against this.  Because protectionism, restrictions and tariffs helped the privileged few protect the high prices in their industry.  In America they talked about a great sucking sound as all American jobs went to low-wage Mexico.  Some manufacturers did move to Mexico.  Primarily because like the small farmers in Britain after the repeal of the Corn Laws they could no longer sell at prices to meet all of their costs.  But it was not as the mercantilists predicted.  Yes, imports increased.  In 2010 they were up 235% from pre-NAFTA 1993.  But exports were up, too.  Some 190% for the same period.  Proving Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage.  By focusing on what we do best and trading for everything else all countries do better.



The Cantona practiced Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mexico 1,000 Years before the Aztecs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 5th, 2012

Week in Review

The Founding Fathers owned slaves.  They took the Indians’ land.  They said all men were created equal but they treated women as second class citizens for over a hundred years.  Rich white men wrote the Constitution for rich white men.  These Christian barbarians even burned witches at the stake in their early history.  At least, these are things we hear the Left say all of the time about our Founding Fathers.  Their Constitution.  And the God-forsaken country they created.  These are the things they are teaching in our public schools and in our universities.  With no consideration of the context of time.  Unlike they give to every other culture on the planet.  Including cultures that ritually sacrificed their own people (see ‘Conclusive’ evidence of human sacrifice found in Mexico posted 5/3/2012 on The Telegraph).

Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History said the finding clearly corroborates accounts from later cultures about the use of sharp obsidian knives in sacrificing humans…

The collection of stone knives is from the little-known Cantona culture, which flourished just after the mysterious city-state of Teotihuacan. Cantona preceded by more than 1,000 years the region’s most famous human sacrifice practitioners, the Aztecs…

While historical accounts from Aztec times, as well as drawings and paintings from earlier cultures, had long suggested that priests used knives and other instruments for non-life-threatening bloodletting rituals, the presence of the muscle and tendon traces indicates the cuts were deep and intended to sever portions of the victim’s body…

Gillespie said human sacrifice practices either described by the Spanish conquerors or depicted in pre-Conquest paintings include heart removal, decapitation, dismemberment, disembowelling and skinning of victims.

To hear those on the Left speak all Americans are guilty for the sins of the Founding Fathers.  Which when taken in the grander scheme of things weren’t that bad.  At least they were nowhere as bad as the sins of the Cantona.  Or the Aztecs.  Who did some really horrible things.

Human sacrifice and cannibalism made it into the 20th century in some remote tribes.  But the Left will never condemn these people like they condemn the Founding Fathers.  They will treat their culture with respect for their ancient religious beliefs.  While calling Christians every derogatory name in the book.  They will put the religious ceremonies of the Cantona and the Aztecs into the context of their time.  While judging the Founding Fathers by today’s standards.  Why is that?

When one is blatantly biased against a group of people one can only conclude that they don’t like that group of people.  Or the country they created.  Even though their country never condoned ritual human sacrifice.  And when you put the Founding Fathers into the context of their times they were pretty enlightened when compared to countries in the Old World.  As well as the ancient cultures of the New World.




Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 28th, 2012

Week in Review










Famine Rumors in Mexico highlight Connection between Capitalism and Food

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 21st, 2012

Week in Review

The Indian suicides were only rumors.  But the famine is pretty close to the truth (see Mexico hit by rumors of Indian famine, suicides by MARK STEVENSON posted 1/16/2011 on the Associated Press).

But Gasca notes that in 2011, his clinic did treat 250 Tarahumara children for malnutrition, including 25 severe cases. One 3-year-old girl died of it.

Gasca also blames the food crisis on the drought and cold.

“There has always been hunger in these hills,” Gasca said. “There have always been climate cycles, but these cycles are getting more frequent and more severe.”

He notes that logging and deforestation in the once pine-covered mountains may play a role in the drought, and is working with others to promote reforestation.

Malnutrition is a tragedy.  Especially when the most innocent suffer.  But before they lay the blame on logging and deforestation we should note that much of the emergency food aid handed out by organizations like the Red Cross comes from countries who are doing a lot of logging and deforestation in their own countries.  Countries that produce so much food that they can use it to make fuel for their automobiles.  Countries whose poor also suffer from obesity.  And countries that have so much food that they can ship it to those who have no food.

The reason these people are battling against famine isn’t because of capitalism’s greed for their trees.  It’s because of the lack of capitalism.  Capitalist countries don’t suffer famine.  They help those who do.  Because their advance civilization that capitalism allows also allows food surpluses.  The goal of civilization since the first civilizations.  Even in countries that can’t grow food.  Because any country with a free market economy can always trade for what they don’t have.  Whether it be oil.  Clothing.  Or food.


Tags: , , , , , ,

Price Inflation has led to Wage Inflation in the Eastern Manufacturing Cities in China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 25th, 2011

Week in Review

Inflation has arrived in China.  Wages are going up.  Increasing the cost of their manufactured goods.  And the cost of living (see China province raises minimum wage by 23% posted 12/22/2011 on the BBC).

Sichuan province in southwest China has increased the minimum wage sharply to try and attract workers amid a rapidly rising cost of living.

Sichuan raised the minimum monthly wage by 23.4% starting on 1 January, state news agency Xinhua said on Thursday…

Severe labour shortages in Chinese cities have prompted wage rises in many provinces this year and last.

An example of the role prices play in supply and demand.  Life is good in the Eastern manufacturing cities.  So good that there is a lot of economic activity.  And prices are rising to allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses.  Even labor.  But inflation isn’t always good.  Higher prices eventually will lower sales as people can’t afford to buy as much as they once did.  And those cheap exports become not so cheap.  Which means those factories eventually will cut back on production.  As a recession settles in to readjust those prices.

Rising wages have prompted analysts to predict that China, previously known for its low cost of labour, could lose its edge as a manufacturing hub.

Manufacturers could look to countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Cambodia where wages are still low.

However, Chinese authorities have been trying to boost domestic consumption and be less export dependent, and a rise in wages will encourage spending.

Before China it was Mexico.  Remember that great sucking sound as all those American jobs went to Mexico?  Mexico was chopping in high cotton for awhile.  Until they heard that great sucking sound as their jobs went to China.  And now China may hear it next.  As some of their jobs go to Vietnam, Bangladesh and Cambodia.  Who will lament one day the loss of their jobs to some other low-wage country.

This is economics.  And consumerism.  Consumers are always looking to get the most value for their money.  So manufacturers are always trying to undercut the competition to give these consumers what they want.  Good for consumers.  But not good for countries whose poor get a taste of the good life.  And don’t want to be poor anymore.  Thus raising the cost of production.  And eliminating their low-cost advantage.  At least for their export markets.

Eventually all emerging economies will be emerging no more.  And the low-cost advantage will not be attained the easy way.  With cheap labor.  For these once emerging economies will go to the next step in their economic development.  Capital investment in plant and equipment.  To lower their cost of production through economies of sales.  By doing more with less people.  With people leaving the low-skill assembly jobs in massive factories.  And instead design, build, run and maintain the equipment that replaces them at their old jobs.

Socialists and communists (as well as Big Labor) say this is a bad thing.  Replacing people with machines.  Even though they help to relieve chronic labor shortages that labor just can’t meet.  Lowering the cost of living for everyone.  And increasing the standard of living for everyone.  It’s happened everywhere through history.  And it now appears to be happening in China.  Which should ultimately be a good thing for the Chinese.  Especially for the masses who don’t live and work in the Eastern manufacturing cities.



Drug Violence on our Southern Border and Catcalls in New York City are Related – Societal Decay Responsible for Both

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 30th, 2010

The drug cartel violence crosses the U.S. border.  Beheaded body found in Phoenix, Arizona.

It’s getting a little violent on this side of the U.S. border.  The latest?  This from AP’s Amanda Lee Myers’ Arizona beheading raises fears of drug violence posted on

The gruesome case of a man who was stabbed and beheaded in a suburban Phoenix apartment has police investigating whether the killing is potentially the most extreme example of Mexican drug cartel violence spilling over the border.

The police think the victim was stealing drugs from the cartel.  And this was a message to others who might be thinking about doing likewise. 

Decapitations are a regular part of the drug war in Mexico as cartels fight over territory. Headless bodies have been hanged from bridges by their feet, severed heads have been sent to victims’ family members and government officials, and bags of up to 12 heads have been dropped off in high-profile locations.

The crime appears confined to members of the drug trade.  It’s a little reassuring for the innocent bystanders close to the crime.  ‘Little’ being the key word.

“I’m terrified,” said [a neighbor], a 47-year-old housekeeper who lives two doors down from the apartment. “I’ve lived here for 20 years and I’ve never heard of that (decapitation) happening, and it was so close to us … Maybe they’re copying what’s happening in Mexico.”

But it hasn’t been exactly restricted to the drug trade.  There has been some collateral damage. 

While extreme violence has stayed south of the border for the most part, some of it has spilled over into the U.S.

In March, Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was gunned down while checking water lines on his property near the border. Authorities believe – but have never produced substantive proof – that an illegal immigrant, likely a scout for drug smugglers, was to blame for his killing.

In May 2009, a Mexican drug cartel lieutenant who became an informant for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was shot eight times outside his pricey home in El Paso. The lieutenant, Jose Daniel Gonzalez Galeana, was living in Texas on a visa that ICE gave him, and is believed to be the first ranking cartel member killed in the U.S.

Payan described the spillover as minimal, but said it could increase.

And what is the federal government doing to address border security?  Suing Arizona.  And putting up some signs that warn Americans about unsafe American territory.

Whistles, catcalls and lewd come-ons on the rise in New York City.  Young girls harassed near their schools.

In a serious news story about women being harassed on the streets of New York (see AP’s NYC Considers a No Catcall Zone posted on on 10/29/2010), the article starts off with a most inappropriate photo.  It shows a woman’s feet in what appears to be 6-inch stiletto heels.  The kind of shoes you’d see a stripper wear on stage.  Or so I’ve heard.  One thing for certain, though, any man looking at the photo is going to imagine a smoking hot woman attached to those feet.  The kind of a woman that burly construction workers would whistle at.  And, to be fair, a woman dressed like THAT may be disappointed if they didn’t.  So it’s a rather poor choice of a photo to use with this article.  For although we know:

Whistles, catcalls and lewd come-ons from strangers are all too familiar to New York City women, who say they are harassed multiple times a day as they walk down the street.

Some men are clearly crossing the line. 

A City Council committee heard testimony Thursday from women who said men regularly follow them, yell at them and make them feel unsafe and uncomfortable. Advocates told stories of preteens and teenagers being hounded by adult men outside city schools and pleaded for government to address the problem.

And what is the city of New York doing about this issue?

Hollaback [an organization formed five years ago to stand up to street harassment] is pushing the city to commission a study, a public awareness campaign and perhaps even legislation, including “no-harassment zones” around schools to protect young women.

Madonna, Brittany Spears and Glee go too far in sexualizing young girls?

Now, what do these two stories have in common?  Although the victims aren’t responsible for the crime/harassment against them, the society that they are a part of is.

The Left wants to give condoms to our kids.  And make abortions available when a pregnancy happens.  We need to be progressive.  Kids are having sex.  We need to stop being so puritan and treat our kids as adults.  Like the television show Glee does.  In that show adults play high school kids.  And their audience is primarily high school kids and younger.  They’ve had some pretty questionable content on that show.  Madonna and Brittany Spears video parodies.  And they’ve appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine, dressed as high school kids.  But you could look up one of the girls’ skirt and see her little white panties.  And the same ‘girl’ just did a GQ photo shoot, posing inside a high school.  Again, showing her little white panties.   Of course, these kids are really adults. But they play kids. 

The Left attacks the world of Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best & Ozzie and Harriet.  But you gotta admit this; they didn’t objectify women.  You didn’t see any of them sexualizing young girls.  And New York City didn’t have council meetings discussing possible legislation banning catcalls around schools.

Marijuana, cocaine, heroin and crystal meth supplied by Mexico to meet demand in the United States.

They’re trying to legalize marijuana again in California.  They say it’s no big deal.  It’s no worse than drinking.  And all that talk about it being a gateway drug to the stronger stuff?  That’s just ridiculous.  Then again, that stronger stuff is crossing the border along with the marijuana.  Which begs the question, why?  Who’s using the harder stuff?  People who’ve moved on from marijuana? 

The vast majority of drugs coming in from Mexico and causing all that trouble on the border is marijuana.  There’s big money in Mexican marijuana.  And it will get bigger and bloodier if California legalizes it.  More customers.  And lower prices (legal things tend to be cheaper than illegal things).  The drug gangs will fight to expand their territory.  And fight to not lose any of their territory.  So there’s marijuana.  Also coming in from Mexico is cocaine, black tar heroin and, of course, crystal meth.  Meth is a booming business since they restricted the sale of decongestants in the states.  They have factories in Mexico creating this stuff wholesale.  And shipping it to the United States.  Why?  Because we keep saying drugs are no big deal.

Sex and drugs responsible for societal decay?

Sex and drugs.  Everybody does it/them.  We need to accept it.  Treat kids as adults.  And when there are consequences to this behavior, we play the blame game.  It’s not school condoms and abortion on demand that is making people look at girls/women as sexual objects.  It’s men acting as animals.  For girls/women it’s empowering and liberating.  But it’s primitive animal behavior for men.  Of course, women can’t be empowering or liberating sexually without men.  So men are obliging.  And they’re apparently thinking about it all of the time.  Even when working on a construction site.

And when it comes down to pointing the finger of blame for the border violence, I don’t know if we can point it at just the drug gangs.  I mean, they wouldn’t be doing what they are doing if it wasn’t for all those Americans eagerly looking to buy what they are selling.

So, when men whistle at a girl/woman, or there is a drug-gang murder on the border, society’s to blame.  And it’s important to emphasize that the individual victims themselves are not responsible.  It is the societal decay that has preconditioned the predator.   They think it’s all right.  Because everyone is having sex.  And doing drugs.



« Previous Entries