The Trump Factor

"Get him the hell out of here!" Trump thundered to insane applause as his crowd "assisted" the protester out of the rally.

Then he told China that they can go "fuck" themselves, or rather or mouthed it...as if that really makes a difference

Then he said about terrorists that "We need to take out their families."

Then he said about Megan Kelly that she was "bleeding out of her wherever."


No matter what happens this election, its clear that Donald Trump has bulldozed over the previous status quo.  Donald Trump will go down in the history books because he has done what no one has done before him in American politics.  He has hijacked the machinery of the Republican party and is remaking it in his own image, singehandedly, and amazingly without spending much money at all compared to the other candidates, even among those that dropped out.

Donald Trump is exploiting the brand of trump that he has built over a very long time.  In addition he has tapped into the anger of the disillusioned Republican base (and in particular white blue collar men) and ran with it.  I talked to a barber that liked Donald Trump recently and he told me he liked Donald Trump because "he is not a politician."  Distrust of politicians is at an all time high, and Donald Trump also taps into that.

However what I find most striking is how Donald Trump exploited the average conservative voter's complete distrust of the media to catapult himself to the front of the primary.  His strategy was simple.  Say outrageous things, draw the ire of the media, then conservatives will love him simply out of their common hatred for the media and its "political correctness."

What I find genius about his strategy is that it lacks substance, much in the same way as 2008 Obama.  Also just like Obama's 2008 bid, he appeals to his voters at a gut cultural level.  His appeal is not based off policy, its based off identity.  Obama wanted "Hope and Change."  Trump wants "To Make America Great Again."

Trumps campaign slogan perfectly taps into the conservative Armageddon victim narrative that America used to be great, it used to be based off Judaeo-Christian values, it used to for the middle class, it used to have good paying jobs, it used to have stable families, it used to etc. etc. etc.  And the fact is, there is truth to this narrative.  There are alot of things America used to be, that it isn't anymore.  Some of those things I would argue were bad, but I digress.  The point is that America, as his voters see it, has moved past them.  America no longer has room for them and their values.

If you drive through middle America you will know why this is so.  Strewn through the landscape are abandoned small towns that were once vibrant communities.  In particular in the rust belt, many towns have devolved into slums.  The people who are left have lost their pride, and now idle away their time without hope since the factory they worked at closed down, and now they live off the government dole.  The family has fallen apart, with absentee fathers just as if not more likely than present ones.  Since the traditional American dream is no longer possible in their minds, young men in these communities embrace a machismo ethic to cope with the new reality they now live in.

The community is angry for obvious reasons.  The world is far more uncertain now, along with their place in it.  Things are literally falling apart around them, and all their jobs seem to be going to China.

Meanwhile the Republicans toy with these voters by attacking illegal aliens for taking jobs and government benefits.  The Republicans toy with these voters by giving them a mythical boogieman called sharia law, attacking Liberal elites, and even talking tough about China.

Then here comes Donald Trump, who gives them all they wanted and more.  They are sick of being toyed with by Republicans, and straight up being ignored by Democrats.  Donald Trump addresses all their concerns.  The Washington consensus that globalization is always good finally has been broken.  Maybe Donald Trump can turn back the clock and "Make America Great Again."

I know particularly those on the left can't understand Donald Trump's appeal.  They think all of his supporters are just prejudiced bigots.  I don't deny that is a factor, but I think its clear thats not the only or even the most important issue.

The real issue is that these towns are no longer economically viable.  The current economic model of a heavily regulated domestic economy, combined with globalization, has made factory towns mostly a thing of the past.  Many people have moved because of this to larger metropolitan areas, but those that have not adjusted have been hit extremely hard.  However many have deep attachments to their homes, their communities, and don't want to move.  Its likely in the end the harsh realities of globalization will force them to abandon these towns once and for all, yet maybe not.

They believe Donald Trump can erect trade barriers that will allow their towns to prosper once again.  Its not entirely far fetched.  America has had periods of history in which its barriers to trade were much greater than now.  Granted, I am fairly certain such a move will plunge us into deep recession and in the long run will lower overall productivity and increase prices, but I suppose there are some who shrug at this.  Afterall for their town, recession has been the natural state for 20+ years anyway.  In addition to them, the promise of low skilled decent paid jobs seems a worthwhile trade off.

The deeper moral question I think we need to ask, is whats the role of community?  Do we need community?  If we believe communities are important and worth protecting, then how is the best way to do that?  The book "Bowling Alone" looks into the phenomenon of declining social participation by individuals in society.  Most now isolate themselves in their own worlds and don't bother to connect with their neighbors, neighborhoods, communities, etc.  I suppose this is because communities are extremely fluid now.  People move in and out all the time.  People are connected to eachother in more atomized ways via the internet and other activities, but community of place has died, at least in suburbs and I assume urban areas as well.  I do wonder if we have lost something important by neglecting community of place.  Was there something such community provided that our current social institutions no longer provide?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but clearly these Trump supporters think their communities are worth protecting and rehabilitating.  I can't understand it personally because I have always lived in Suburbs, where community of place is a well constructed illusion, a sham, an imitation of the real thing that is clearly fake.  I also think most voters throughout the country don't understand such loyalty to place.  Most voters are much like me in this regard.  Thus to them, the only reason these voters vote for trump must be bigotry.  I just don't think its that simple at all.   I also don't think its constructive to hate on these voters, which closes down dialogue instantly.  This does not mean that one has to be charitable to Trump.  I believe we should heartily condemn Trump, but at the same time I think its important to extend an olive branch to his voters and listen.  We really should listen to all people and engage them, and especially when we vehemently disagree (even if they offend us).  If we don't, if instead we incessantly denounce his voters as evil racists, I fear we risk creating a chasm that cannot so easily be bridged.  I fear the future of politics will become a war of hate filled grievance politics, where one half of the nation blames the other half for their problems.  I hope this does not happen.  I sincerely hope we can move onto a higher politics not based on victimization, but rather on mutual respect and a thorough debate on the issues and solutions.  I fear this is a pipe dream, but who knows, maybe I will be proved wrong.  I certainly hope so.

Why the U.S. Must Stand by Iraq

Guess what was on the news yesterday?  George H.W. Bush jumped out of a plane for his 90th birthday!  Well, as important as that is.  Something else happened too...ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Al Asham) has literally invaded Iraq from its stronghold in Sytria (yes...Syria, ring a bell?) and is now at the gates of Baghdad.  Yet of course, I doubt most even know that this is happening.  And of those that know, even fewer care.  I can at least understand why we would think Syria is none of our business, however now Iraq is falling, and I for one believe that we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people.  

We are the ones that went in and disrupted their country, unintentionally sparking a sectarian conflict and occupation that lasted nearly a decade.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have already died since we first invaded Iraq as the result of the conflict.  At the very least in return for that suffering we should deliver on the good we promised them, democracy.  They are an infant democracy struggling along, and it is simply unfair and inhumane to just let it fall apart, making all of the suffering of the Iraqis empty and meaningless.  Keep in mind that the U.S., while declaring independence in 1776, did not establish its current form of government until 1787... and that was after trying out one botched form of government, the Confederation.  We tend to glaze over that in the popular imagination of our country.  We shouldn't glaze over how difficult it is to get a democracy to work.  We should be in it with the Iraqis for the long run to ensure their democracy works...we owe them at least that much.

The Obama Administration is talking (which it excels at) about getting involved to help Iraq fought off ISIS.  According to President Obama, quoted by the Wall Street Journal, "Our national security team is looking at all the options."  All I have to say is I hope this is more than talk, and will actually be backed by action this time around.  This administration has already fumbled the ball with its red line...or maybe not so red line, on Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria.  Then after Russia ceased Crimea from Ukraine the U.S. government imposed the most timid of sanctions.  And now China is flexing its muscles in the South Pacific, bullying its neighbors into sacrificing control over their sovereign waters.  China even started drilling for oil in the sovereign waters of Vietnam, and backed it with military force, even ramming one of Vietnam's ships .  

Current map of ISIS controlled territory (in red)

All this to say I am not too optimistic about this Adminstration's resolve, and I believe ISIS is probably banking on the U.S. doing nothing, or almost nothing.  Why else would ISIS so brazenly invade a country?  It is using conventional army tactics, and declaring itself as a state.  Well I will tell you why.  ISIS got its strength from the Syria conflict.  As the Syrian Spring turned into a blood bath, the rebel force that revolted against Assad slowly was overtaken by zealous Islamists that came from all over the Middle East to fight in the conflict.  There in Syria back in 2011 the rebels expected aid from the West, much like how the rebels in Lybia were assisted in overthrowing Khadafi, but no, no aid came.  The rebels soon turned to other less scrupulous sources for aid, including terrorist organizations.  The Syrians, and the rebels, learned a painful lesson, the West won't always be there to help, even when the cause was clearly just.  Likewise, Russia, China, Iran, and ISIS, all looked on, and realized that they could get away with alot more than they initially thought.

Hence why ISIS is now so aggressive in its tactics for overthrowing Iraq.  Whats even worse, is that Iran is contemplating getting involved to fight ISIS and back the Iraqi government.  If Iran helps and not us, we would be relinquishing our influence in Iraq to one of the least savory regimes in the Middle East.  Iran is a theocracy, supports the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon, and until recently was trying to obtain nuclear capabilities.  This may be speculative, but its not a stretch to say that Iran may try to impose a Shia theocracy on Iraq modeled after its own.  In a nation as diverse as Iraq that would be a catastrophe, and could potentially lead to untold oppression agains the Sunni religious minority in the country.  

All of this is to say that we cannot afford to let Iraq fall.  It would be a moral and political disaster. Everything we did there, and all our soldiers sacrifice would mean nothing.  Politically it would just further show everyone how weak and tepid the U.S. is.  I mean seriously, if the U.S. won't take this seriously, what crisis will it take seriously?  Our friends, and enemies, will certainly be pondering that question.

The Price of Enlightenment: Debt

Something disturbing is happening in educations of "higher learning."  The "higher" things people are learning are not translating into marketable skills.  Many of are founding out their degrees are little more than proof that they are intelligent and dedicated, and they are paying a steep price for it.  Degrees are becoming more expensive, reducing the reward.  Meanwhile student loans are becoming more widespread, and a degree more and more necessary just to get an entry level full time job.  This all is coalescing into a catastrophe.

I was one of those that went into college and got myself a generic liberal arts degree.  I majored in history, with a minor in economics.  I did fairly well in school, but honestly was not quite sure what I wanted to do after school.  I do know one thing, almost everything I wanted to do out of school was out of reach.  I did not have enough education or high enough gpa for most of the history internships, and even if i landed them, what then?  They pay almost nothing, and the internship will most likely not land you any sort of history related job.  If I wanted to work in a museum, I would need to go to Gradschool.  I considered Journalism too...guess what?  Pays little, is extremely competitive, and you have no chance if you didn't major in Journalism.  I was little prepared for the realities of the job market.

The fact is I was young and naive, I will admit it.  I really should have done more research before deciding on a major so I can be prepared for a career.  Luckily for me, my parents were able to foot most of the bill for my education, so the student loans I do have are not terrible.  I can deal with them.  My job is good enough to allow me to pay them off.  

Nevertheless many are not as lucky.  Many graduated with liberal arts degrees, and did so mostly with student loans.  If I had done that I would be buried in debt right now, right out of school...nice.  Even worse, many out of school are still working in part time jobs.  They certainly are not making enough to pay for their loans...yet alone just living expenses.

All of this is to point out the ridiculousness of our student loan system.  It is literally setting up people for failure.  If your parents can afford to pay for it, then at least your bad financial decision did not ruin you.  However if you had to take tons of student loans...then its financial suicide to major in something that does not give you any practical skills that command a high salary.  You may not like this fact, and may object to the way I describe it, but I am just telling you the reality of how this is.  Anyone that must incur huge debt to go to school, should make dead certain their degree will pay for itself.

Many graduate college only to find themselves in a figurative 

"debtors prison."

This is why I cannot believe that FASFA is enabling young people, 18 year olds, many that are not mature enough to make good decisions, to commit financial suicide.  It would be one thing if tuition was being subsidized...but it is not.  FASFA is granting loans to young people to major in art, history, journalism, that no matter how honorable those majors may be, will never enable those young people to pay off their loans.  

This has to be changed.  And in my opinion, its simple.  Make the loans dependent on majoring in something with a high payoff, such as Applied health science, chemistry, computer programming, pre-med, nursing, finance, etc. etc.  Students in these majors should be able to pay off large loans far more easily.  Perhaps allow small loans for the other less lucrative majors, but don't allow students to burry themselves in debt to obtain them.  

The only downside to all this is of course that less people will learn to think critically about the society we live in.  I do regret that.  However there are cheaper ways to learn about these things.  People could easily form clubs online to learn about sociology or history or art, etc.  It would certainly be much cheaper, and still enlightening.  Not to mention I believe such a forum based approach will allow a much more democratic apporach than the typical authoritarian style most professors prefer.  Anyways I digress.  If you majored in liberal arts like I did, thats great.  Just don't expect huge financial rewards, and don't do it if you have to take on lots of debt.  

Jobs: "Something Forgettable"

"Jesus!"

"No....Its Just Steve."

Thats a line from the movie "Jobs" (you know, the one about Steve Jobs...).  While he says he is just Steve, the movie lifts Steve up on a pedestal as if he is some sort of tech messiah.  The movie is all tinted in a nostalgic glow, from the intentionally off colored video to the sound track.  You will definitely catch the fuzzies watching this movie, but thats not the only thing you will catch.  Look closely and you will see an all American tall tale, of a man who through his own willpower created a tech empire.  You will see all the ideals Americans cherish, from rugged frontiersman individualism, to relentless forward progress without ever looking back.  Yet at the same time this is coupled with the modern narrative of the egocentric prideful p
rivileged youth, that have been told all their lives they are special, and all of who wish to be Steve Jobs.  The movie offers validation to those that wish to rebel, that their rebellion from society does not have to come at a cost.  You can be yourself, and be ridiculously rich at the same time.

The movie opens up with Steve Jobs unveiling the Ipod, he tells his audience, "If you can touch the heart, its limitless."  Romanticized much?  I definitely think so.  Yes, I suppose you can say the Ipod touches the heart by giving the individual total autonomy in listening to whatever music he wants.  Nevertheless while the individual is empowered, its at the expense of his neighbors.  In my experience, Ipods are most often used to avoid interaction, to provide an emotionally safe bubble one can hide behind in unfamiliar places.  I will concede one thing to the movie...I suppose by addicting our hearts to Ipods he is right...the money certainly is limitless.

Near the end of the movie he says, "The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that do." Or perhaps he should have said, "Out of the many people crazy enough to try and change the world, I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, positioned to exploit trends already in motion to my advantage."  Alot longer but in my opinion more accurate.  Its true what he made changed the world, but its dubious that the technology he fostered would not have happened without him.  Its also funny how little credit the movie gives to his partners.  Nothing he did would have been possible without his geeky friend.  Their teamwork was essential, but ultimately Steve Jobs gobbles up all the credit.  Since he is the focus, everything is about him in the movie and what he did.  Its an interesting story, but the emphasis on his role distorts the big picture, necessarily making him out to be all important.

Despite the fact the movie worships Steve Jobs,  I think where the movie most shines is in what it reveals about us, and in particular about the young privileged class.  Steve Jobs often is found repeating the sentiments one would hear from many 20 somethings today.  Steve Jobs is always risking it all, a trait highly desireable amongst the coddled youth of today, who wish nothing more than to take a risk for once in their easy lives.  When he talks to the Dean at the school he attended, he states that a degree offers validation and job security, but that its not for him because he does not want to be part of the system, he wants to change the system.  In addition he states he does not want his parents to fork up tuition "to become something forgettable, like an electrician."  He wants to be a superhero, just like the rest of us.

The difference is that he does what most of us only dream about.  He drops out of school, then heads off to India and lives as simply as possible.  Again that is something I have wished to do.  Its something many young 20 somethings want to do.  Then when he comes back he is disgruntled at work because, as he states, "I just can't work for other people."  Something many of us coddled prideful youths can sympathize with.  We have been told our whole lives how special and important we are, and now we believe it and are offended when anyone dares to ignore us and undervalue what we do.  Afterall, its all about us.

The funny thing is that ultimately even the invincible Steve Jobs has to rely on the "something forgettables" like nerdy programmers and has to work for other people (his board of trustees).  He never would have gone anywhere if he was not able to convince investors to invest in his company, or convince stores to buy his computers.  Its funny because something we often forget, is that its the "something forgettables" that make this world tick.  The world can only afford so many Steve Jobs, the rest have to settle to being cogs in the machine, rather than making the machines. Steve Jobs had a dream and made it become reality. Yet for every Steve Jobs there are countless people that failed.  Indeed, even Steve Jobs failed, he was fired from his own company, before being brought back on years later.  Thats just one more thing we must remember.  We coddled privileged youths cannot have it all.  If you go the Steve Jobs route, it is likely you will fall on your face several times.  You will have to get back up and try try again, until eventually you succeed.

The fact is the movie romanticizes the entrepreneurial spirit, and deceives young adults into believing that we can have it all.  You can go to India, be a hermit, then come back and make billions, all while staying true to your hippy self.  You can fight the system, battle authority, and still come out on top.  The fact is that in most cases that is not true.  In most cases the outcasts of society stay the outcasts, and the squares stay the squares.  If you want to be the next Steve Jobs, go ahead and go for it, but don't expect victory to be easy or cheap.  You will have to sell most of your life to your dream.  You will have to delay gratification and NOT always do what you want.  And if you do become the next Steve Jobs, please do not forget about the "something forgettables" that helped you get there.

We Need to Wake Up!

He knew inside, deep inside, that something was terribly wrong.  Everyone kept scurrying about as if this was normal, but he knew better.  He knew they were all as good as dead.  He knew they were walking corpses, and that there was no turning back.  Yet he clung to the hope that he could save them.  He chose to believe that he could make a difference.  He saw a tall building, far off in the distance, the tallest in the land, and walked towards it.  He was determined to go to the top of that tower, and from there tell all who would hear what was happening.  He would proclaim the end of the world bravado, and wake everyone up to the impending doom.  Even better, he would offer the solution to save the world from its demise.  

He climbed 100 stories to reach the top, and looked down at everyone.  They all looked like ants from here.  Ants scurrying about from one task to the other.  However there was one crucial difference.  Ants work for eachother, while these creatures only worked for themselves.  They only worked for their own happiness, and unless they worked together this once, the world for sure would end.  Evil was prevailing while everyone looked the other way.  A tear rolled down his face as he contemplated this, but decided to face down the enemy head on anyway.  He looked out over the horizon, took a deep breath, and yelled out the truth for all to hear.  He yelled the truth for hours.  Before he knew it, it had been days. 

A week later he was exhausted, he climbed down the tower, hoping that people heard and decided to listen.  He opened the gates at the bottom of the tower and peered outside, and was aghast.  The sky was turning red, and a massive inferno was heading straight towards them, yet everyone kept going about their business.  It was disturbing to see, yet the inferno, while ghastly, was subtle.  Only slowly was it killing them.  However he thought for sure they must know.  He saw a man, and ran towards him.  He asked the man, "did you hear what I said from the tower?!  We must stop this!! We are all slowly dying! We will die anyday now!"  The man said, "Oh please don't bother me with that.  I don't vote."  He walked up to a woman and asked her.  She said, "You trying to tell me what to do? I don't have to listen to this."  She stomped away in anger.  He could barely believe his eyes.  People continued to live in revelry, and ignore the leviathan staring them in the face, waiting to kill them.  People chose not to care.  They chose to believe it didn't effect them.  

How can I or anyone make a difference if no one will listen.  I have realized no one will, or at least the masses never will.  The political machine has been rigged to minimize visible damage to the masses on one hand while raping them with the other.  Yet its all in secret.  Its actually very visible, but no one will take the 5 seconds to care.  What has happened to us!?  I watched a documentary on the Arab Spring in Egypt and was deeply moved.  The people were mobilized to take down the corrupt elite.  Yet here in America, we let the corrupt elite, the same corrupt elite that brought about the Great Recession, to rule the roost, as long as they give us our goodies.  Yet we really aren't getting anything.  Its a bit like giving you candy then stealing your car.  We apparently don't care, which is reflected by our voting record.  We choose to stay aloof from politics because they are all corrupt, yet its exactly that attitude that allows the corruption to run rampant.  I suppose we deserve the masters we have chosen.  Congratulations America, while you watch "The Real Desperate Housewives of New Jersey,"  "The Real Politicians of DC" will be watching and controlling you.

Why We Must Stop Assad

I watched the movie Hotel Rwanda recently, and it infuriated me.  The Tutsis and Hutus hated eachother in Rwanda, and a civil war broke out.  The Hutus decided to commit mass genocide against the Tutsis, murdering hundreds of thousands of them.  Nothing justifies such slaughter of life, and nothing justifies such an inept response by the West.  In the movie the West only sent in peacekeepers to get their own citizens out of the country, but did nothing to protect the Tutsis.  Also thats not just what happened in the movie, it happened in real life too, and America did almost nothing during the slaughter.  Bill Clinton would not deploy our troops, fearing the political backlash.  I am sorry, but the west needs to man up, its simple as that.  In certain cases, such as Rwanda and Darfur, the west should flex its muscles and defend the defenseless.  We have the wealth and power, and can easily do it with minimal sacrifice in real terms to ourselves...but no, the lives of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans apparently was not worth it.

I fear we are about to repeat history.  Once again, we are about to do nothing while a regime slaughters its people.  In this case, its Assad's regime in Syria, slaughtering his own people.  The People rose up against him during the Arab spring, and he responded with bullets.  Now, 3 years later, the war rages on, and his regime has attached his own people with poison gas, and has slaughtered countless civilians.  Yet still we do nothing.  We think it will be another Iraq.  However there is a big difference.  The slaughter in Iraq was a consequence of our intervention.  In Syria, its the exact opposite.  The slaughter will be a consequence of our inaction.  Iran and Russia are supporting, Assad, meanwhile we leave the rebels stranded, giving the Islamic extremists that much more ammunition.  What can help their cause more than to show to everyone that the West doesn't care?

I know I just wrote an article about government intervention...and now I am calling for intervention.  My thinking I must admit has not been consistent, but frankly I am starting to grasp that I do not really believe anyone's thinking can be perfectly consistent.  Since if you believe that government is necessary for something, then you are conceding, that at least to some extent, government intervention at times is necessary.  I believe that first and foremost, government intervention is necessary when there is life on the line.  Government exerts a monopoly on the use of physical force so that violence can be prohibited, punished, and hopefully reduced in society at large.  People whether in tribes or nation states agree to sacrifice the use of force to a governing authority because without it civilized social relations would not exist.  While some would argue with this point I believe the majority at least would agree. As a result of this thinking I believe that its imperative that when people are perpetrating violence, and human life is in danger, it is very much the government's role to provide a "safety net" so to speak.  Likewise, I believe its the international community's responsibility to provide a basic safety net for the most weak and vulnerable in this world.  When the lives of people in this world are threatened, its our duty as fellow human beings to do what we can to protect their lives.  As a result of this line of thinking, I believe its imperative that the international community (including the United Sates), intervene in Syria and put an end to the atrocities committed by Assad's regime.



P.S. Many of you jumped on the bandwagon to stop Kony, and at the time I did not believe we should.  But now my thinking has come around, and I agree.  However our support cannot be fickle and patchy and facebook trendy, it has to be real.

Government Intervention and its Consequences

Its funny how so many well meaning people constantly cry fowl over every injustice in the world, and continue to advocate the same solutions to everything.  The answer is of course, more government, everywhere, all the time.  It doesn't seem to matter what the issue is.  The instinctual reflex of everyone on the left is to advocate more government.  It is a constant frustration for me because government intervention of any kind always leads to its own problems.  The intervention in the market creates a distortion, which hurts people.  The market is then blamed for failing, and government steps in again to "fix" the market.  The whole thing becomes cyclical, with the inevitable result that the market becomes so disfunctional that direct government control is the only answer. Its about time that "government failure" be exposed, and not just "market failure."

Just look at the American economy, and you quite easily see the end result of these political "fixes".  Look at our last recession.  Which sectors of the economy were the most responsible for the crash?  housing and finance.  Which two sectors of the economy also happen to have been the most regulated?Housing and finance.  All sorts of real estate laws in the states lead to intense market distortions that guarantee restricted supply, and government intervention in finance guaranteed easy money to those that couldn't afford it, inflating demand.  One example was the strict building codes in California.  Few building permits were ever granted because the environment came first.  However noble this may seem, it meant that the supply of housing in California, since the 80's, has not kept up with demand.  This led to housing prices exploding in California.  This then led of course to liberals crying fowl that the poor could not afford decent housing...which was due to their policies.   The answer of course, was to force banks to give out easy money to people that could not afford it.  This then exploded demand even more, leading to a vicious cycle of rising house prices.   The book, "The Housing Boom and Bust," goes into this in great detail.

Now consider this, according to the Economist, California has the highest poverty rate when adjusted for cost of living in the United States, at 25%.  Its funny how time and time again, the states that are supposedly the most progressive are increasingly becoming expensive enclaves for rich enlightened liberals.  I mean if you are lucky enough to have a house in California, you are set.  Skyrocketing prices guaranteed your standard of living would go up.  Therefore the haves had no incentive to do away with the strict environmental regulations because it benefited them.  Meanwhile their less fortunate neighbors voted with their feet, to states where housing is far less regulated and cheaper.  Liberals constantly assume they care more for the poor, but the reality is despite all their best intentions, their policies are exactly to blame for the plight of the poor.

Another interesting example of how liberal policies have screwed over the poor is rent control.  Controlling rents, on the face of it, sounds like a wonderful way to guarantee affordable housing.  However in practice it restricts supply.  In fact it does worse than this, it destroys neighborhoods.  You think I am exaggerating, but I am not.  In New York City, there was a story from back in the 70's of a landlord that could not charge enough rent to even cover his operating expenses for the building.  It was absolutely absurd.  He took in less from rent than he had to fork out in utilities and property taxes.  As a result he never invested anything in upkeep and tried his hardest to get the property off his hands.  He even tried to give the property to the tenants, for free!  Guess what...they wouldn't take it!  It was cheaper for them to just pay the rent.  No sane person would invest in developing apartments in such an environment.  And guess what?  No one did.  People could not find places to live in the city, leading to exodus, and the neighborhoods that did exist declined into ghettos since nothing was invested in upkeep.  The ghettos did not just happen, they were the result of well intentioned policies that had disastrous consequences.

Where the government has not interferred, such as in the internet and technology, prices have fallen and the economy has prospered.  Where the government has heavily intervened, as in housing, education, and healthcare, prices have been increasing far faster than incomes.  Either by restricting supply or by inflating demand, the government has stimulated price gouging.  In the process the portion of the electorate the liberals supposedly care about the most, the poor, are hurt the most.  Yet continuously the market is blamed time and time again, without ever being given a chance to work in the first place.

Last thing before I close up, yes its true that perfectly aimed policies can have a positive effect on an economy.  I don't deny that.  However lets look at two things.  1) Humans are not omniscient, so its inevitable that a variable (out of the potentially infinite) we did not consider will rear its ugly head.  2) Its a stretch to think the politicians making the laws actually have an interest in making perfect policy.  What matters is winning votes, and the best way to gain votes is to create voting blocs that are dependent on you.  If people are self sufficient, then what need would there be for the politician?  However if your voters have something to lose if they don't vote for you, then they will vote for you, if for nothing else, to make sure the other guy doesn't take away their goodies.

Why else would democrats constantly oppose consolidating welfare programs (according to the Economist, there are 126 anti poverty programs run by the federal government, many of which overlap)?  They oppose it because there is a constituency for each program that fears losing their goodies, which not only includes the welfare recipients but the bureaucrats.  If you consolidated the welfare programs, then there would not need to be as many bureaucrats, which inevitably means less dependent government employees that will vote democrat (In an economics textbook I read in college, it showed that only 1 out of 7 dollars currently spent on welfare programs goes to a welfare recipient...where do you think the rest goes?).  The same goes for Republicans and funding the military.  Despite the fact that the growth in benefits and pay for the military has ballooned as a percentage of Federal spending on the military over the past 10 years, no Republican would dare lift a finger to cut any of it.  They, just like the Democrats, have a constituency that fears losing its goodies.

The point of this article is that government intervention has consequences, and they are often negative.  Things are not always as they seem.  Just because the intentions are good does not mean the result will be good.  In addition often the intentions are not good.  Often the elites know what they are doing, and do it because it keeps them in power.  I suppose one day it will be possible to make perfect laws.  However until then, I suggest that we keep government interference to a minimum, and let the market operate.