| Letters
to the editor from this week's Chronicle
Origin of Liberty, My Experience I am born free in the true and full sense of the word: I daily employ my faculties and reason to compare, choose, and then act toward self-improvement and self-preservation. Starting at a point of inexperience and surrounded with infinite choices, I often err. However, because of my hope in life, I continue to choose despite the mistakes and consequential suffering. When I work to correct my error(s), without individual excuse, I grow and develop. This is the magnificent, liberating Law of Personal Responsibility granted by the Almighty. Yet, errors or mistakes are part of life, especially since life requires ceaseless effort to maintain, preserve, or improve. Since mistakes result in suffering and suffering is pain, I sometimes create excuses for my errors to avoid the consequential suffering and pain. I may adopt a “victim” posture so I can “get away” with not correcting my errors. I may project, blame, justify, or rationalize. I may hide, minimize, or “run” from my errors. Any of these actions chooses irresponsibility, adopting the enslaving Law of Laziness which the Almighty warned against: Do not steal, covet, lie…. Irresponsibility avoids correcting errors by my own hand and shifting my errors to another. This shifting is to attack justice, to “nullify” cause and effect of natural law that I and I alone, chose. Worse, it is to render myself incapable of improvement, stifling the wonderful breath of life. Short term, shifting, may push away initial suffering, but I “miss out” on the purpose of suffering which “serves as a warning or a lesson”, destroying or limiting my erroneous behavior, redirecting me to better choices. If, I can get away with a ‘victim’ position and not correct my errors, aided by complicit family, false friends, false-philanthropic laws, I no longer need to prepare, plan, look ahead, work, or do. This, in time, will erode me to nothing. No one is exempt. Even public servants, who, if, self-enslaved by irresponsibility, must, in order to support themselves and other ‘victims’, create arbitrary rules, void of Natural Law, to justify their access to the public treasury. Scott Perrin Cottonwood Dear Editor, Recently, I received an "Economic Impact Payment" card. I'm sending it back (via Rep. Russ Fulcher). Here's why: 1. I don't need it. The way our government throws money around is irresponsible at best (wonder why this country has massive debt?). 2. Government has no place in charity. You do. I do. 3. Taxation, Debt, and Inflation. These are the means by which our government will pay for this "economic relief". All of these weaken the economy, thus hampering economic growth in the long run, and ultimately hurting those the charity would supposedly help. 4. "Economic Impact Payment". Indeed. Payment for the economic impact of politicians who made lists of jobs they thought were "essential", who then published these lists, then threatened to fine or imprison anyone whose job didn't appear on the list, if the individual went outside to do the job (two thoughts on this: First, every job is essential for the family fed from that paycheck and, Second, the extreme arrogance of the politicians who, instead of actually addressing the problem, give handouts, as if the moral and legal crisis which caused the "economic impact" doesn't matter). 5. Conservatives like to complain about government control, socialism, etc. But our words are empty, because corporately, if not individually, we constantly seek out and accept government funding in all it's various forms, and with it, the stipulations. There is always a catch, and our supposed hate of socialism is also shown to be false, as we continue to place more and more aspects of our lives in the care of the government, both through the stipulations, and the funding itself. We pretend that Idaho is different. That it's full of sturdy, independent people. It is. It's also full of good old boys. It's also supported heavily by federal funding. The lifeblood of our local jurisdictions is state and federal grants. We pocket a"relief" check for our business, then in the same breath complain about national debt or the rise of socialism. There are, of course, real needs which demand real solutions. However, our current method is not the answer. We need to practice what we preach, or we have no one to blame but ourselves. Isaiah Williams Cottonwood Dear Editor It warms my heart to see the party of kindness, unity, inclusion, and forgiveness in action as they continue with impeachment and other actions to further beat down President Trump and his 75+ million supporters. Thanks Lucky Brandt Kooskia
Redneck Review! No. 302 - 2/82021 With this RNR, I am testing my luck one more time! Everyone knows that a constant stream of negative information gets old, and prompts otherwise faithful readers to pull the plug, stop reading, and even now and then, establishing a "block" to keep it from coming! But in view of previous RNR claims that serious inflation is on the horizon, one more effort is made here to discuss what has been going on in past decades which leads to the claim that serious inflation is most definitely on the horizon! So here goes another attempt to discuss a "need to know" topic, hoping that the subject matter and the importance of it is not ignored! All serious students of economics are familiar with the name of John Maynard Keynes. It is no exaggeration to state that no other single individual has had more influence on the economic status of countries around the world including our own. Time and space do not allow proof documenting this claim, but doubters can do their own research and find that it is true! Briefly, Keynes became famous because of his claim that depressions and periods of high inflation could be controlled by the activity of governments and central banks. His methods are complex, but make a lot of common sense when studied carefully. Essentially, he claimed the two agents, governments using their FISCAL powers and central banks like our FED, Federal Reserve, using its MONETARY power can "Apply the brakes" to cool off economies which get out of control, and "Step on the gas" to speed up an economy threatening a recession or even a depression. The government can change tax rates, or borrow money or reduce debt, give direct grants, or use other powers to help stabilize inflationary or collapsing economies. At the same time, the FED can change interest rates, increase or decrease the money supply, and do its part in eliminating the unwanted highs and lows of typical business cycles. Most serious students of economics will agree that even the very conservative and revered Ronald Reagan used Keynesian theories while in office. Despite his goal of balancing federal budgets, history shows that his administration also was plagued with borrowing and debt! But Reagan made popular what has become known as SUPPLY SIDE economics. He argued that government and FED money should go to the producers, the suppliers of goods, thus increasing the supply which tends to put downward pressure on prices, whereas the opposing politicians argued then and still do today for DEMAND SIDE economics, calling for handouts of money, tax levels, etc. to favor the purchasers, that part of the economic system which is doing the buying of the goods produced. The battle has raged over the decades, the SUPPLY siders arguing that direct grants of money to the buying customers is inflationary, because it increases demand faster than supply can keep up. DEMAND side supporters on the other hand, claim that SUPPLY side methods favor the rich, and that very little benefit goes to the people, other than a possible little TRICKLE DOWN benefit that amounts to very little help to purchasers. Some things become quite obvious! First, even conservative Reagan used Keyne's methods in that he used debt to help stabilize downturns he was faced with. Also obvious, current methods of giving grants of money directly to people is a DEMAND SIDE effort, and that during a period when production is off because of shutdowns, can exert a rising pressure on prices, which of course, is the very definition of inflation. Finally, a study of the history of Keynesian methods to stabilize economies, proves that fighting recessions is politically advantageous, whereas any attempt to slow down a roaring economy is political suicide! So, big inflation, here we come! Jake Wren |
|