Jim Powell of the Cato Institute gives his view on why Romney lost the election:
Romney lost for several reasons. The bulk of his primary advertising seems to have been spent attacking opponents, rather than defining himself, with the consequence that by the time the primaries were over, his reputation was a blank slate as far as the general public was concerned — an irresistible target for Obama’s early advertising blitz that defined him as an out-of-touch rich guy who destroyed American jobs. Romney was on the defensive from the get-go……
I wonder how well read this man is? Would he have read this from Rousseau:-
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), “Social Contract”:
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying, “This is mine”, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes, might not anyone have saved mankind by pulling up the stakes, filling in the ditch, and crying to his fellows, “Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
There is no subjugation so potent as that which leaves the appearance of freedom.
Would he have ever encountered the idea that great wealth co-existing with abject poverty is due to the privatisation of the economic rent of natural resources such as land, its minerals, coal, oil, the electromagnetic spectrum and licensed monopolies in for example, DNA and utility ownership?
If he had read the 1879 best seller ever on economics, “Progress and Poverty” by Henry George (an abridged version is available free at http://progressandpoverty.org/ ) or any of the modern works on the Georgist paradigm such as Predator Culture by Fred Harrison would he still believe that only human nature and class warfare is at the basis of economic problems?
Interesting post.
How would we support civilization without farms and mines. And who would farm or mine if they did not own the land they were directing their efforts on?
Two possible answers:
Most land in Hong Kong is leasehold and large tracts in London, so leasehold may be a workable alternative to freehold.
Hong Kong was leasehold by default as Britain had a lease from the 1840’s to 1997 so it did not make legal sense to offer freehold.
The lease revenue enabled them to minimise other taxes, only 2-17% income tax leading to massive business investment, all on a barren rock. I have read recent reports of housing stress in Hong Kong though so maybe the Chinese administration is changing the system.
Much of central London is owned by the Duke of Westminster who leases land so maybe the land rents go to him not the Crown.
Henry George favoured lease-hold but as USA was already freehold he advocated the single tax on land as the alternative.
If starting with a clean slate, leasehold would be a better alternative. If anyone feels aggrieved by the rent they are charged, the leasehold can be put out to auction or tender so that the property value/rental is tested by the market. Something that a land tax assessment lacks.
How can the Republicans protect us from class warfare when they are one side in that war? It would be like asking the Nazi party to protect us from world war two.
Republicans aren’t just rich people. Nor Democrats poor. That is just propaganda for the mob.
It is not who votes for them but whose interest they serve. How so many people can vote against things which are not in their best interest is always one of those things that astounds me about US politics. That the Democrats and Republicans have any major differences is the real propaganda for the mob.
Agreed
Obama won because he’s black. Period.
If the Republicans had a black candidate he would not have won. Obama won because he is the incumbent and ran a good campaign to distract voters from his weaknesses.