The passion of the left: preserving the beauty of poverty 11

It is against reason to oppose fracking. But the Left opposes it with passion. That is to say, the opulent elite who vote left and have political influence, oppose it with passion.

Of course, in the Great Divide between the politics of Reason and the politics of Romanticism, the Left is the Romantic side: the side of the emotions. Reason is its enemy.

So there should be no surprise that wealthy Democrats hate industrial progress. They find the landscapes of poverty too pretty to spoil.

Here’s the story.

We quote from The Liberal War on American Energy Independence, by Arthur Herman, in the February 2015 issue of Commentary.

Williamsport sits on the edge of the Marcellus Shale area, the second-largest natural-gas find in the world. It stretches across most of Pennsylvania and into New York, West Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland. Most of it was inaccessible until a decade ago, when a combination of new extraction technologies—including hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” and horizontal drilling—opened up the shale to energy development.

Since 2002, fracking has generated in Pennsylvania more than 24,000 drilling jobs and some 200,000 other support jobs in trucking, construction, and infrastructure, according to the state’s Department of Labor and Industry. Wages in the gas field average $62,000 a year—$20,000 higher than the state average.

To Pennsylvania, fracking has brought in $4 billion in investment, including a steady flow of income to local landowners and local governments leasing mineral rights to their land. According to National Resources Economics, Inc., full development of the Marcellus Shale could bring another 211,000 jobs to this one state alone, not to mention other states on the formation, including New York.

But there will be no such jobs in the state of New York. In December, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a complete ban on the use of hydraulic fracturing. The cost of that move was already foreshadowed three years ago when I drove across the border from Pennsylvania into New York. The busy modern highway coming out of Williamsport, U.S. Route 15, shrinks down into a meandering, largely empty two-lane road. On the way to Ithaca, I passed through miles of a deserted rural landscape dotted with collapsing barns and tumble-down houses reminiscent of Appalachia.

The one thing that broke the dismal monotony were the signs, many painted by hand, that had sprouted up along the road and in the fields, all saying the same thing: Ron Paul for President. The state was then in its fifth year of a moratorium on fracking, and that moratorium had turned upstate New York’s rural residents into libertarians. Bitter ones, at that. They didn’t particularly care about Ron Paul’s views on Israel or the Federal Reserve. All they wanted was a chance to collect the lucrative fees a gas company would pay them to drill on their land; they would have voted for anyone who would help them make their land generate an income again for themselves and their families.

This sort of gain is precisely what the left’s war on fracking (which has scored its most significant victory so far with Cuomo’s permanent ban) aims to prevent. It is nothing less than a policy of selective immiseration.

Fracking — a technique that uses a mixture of chemicals, sand, and water to break apart deep formations of oil- and gas-rich shale rock and draw it to the surface — is the most important American industrial enterprise of the 21st century. It joins the automobile industry, aircraft and aerospace, the computer and the digital revolution, as one of America’s great successes in technological innovation, productivity, and entrepreneurial flair. Like other industrial revolutions, including the first in 18th-century Britain, the fracking revolution is bringing about enormous changes in how we live — and sharply altering the nation’s income-distribution curve.

The fracking revolution has also brought America’s oil and gas industry back to life. In 2000, fracking accounted for less than 3 percent of all oil and natural-gas production in the United States, which was then importing more than 60 percent of its oil. Today, fracking accounts for more than 40 percent, and that percentage is going steadily upward, as the U.S. replaces one country after another on the list of the world’s biggest oil and gas producers. Our oil imports from OPEC countries have shrunk by half.

Indeed, the production gushing from America’s shale oil and gas deposits — from Eagle Ford in Texas to the Marcellus Formation in Pennsylvania and the Bakken oil field in North Dakota — doesn’t just promise the long-elusive goal of energy independence. It points to an energy dominance and economic power that the United States hasn’t seen for 100 years, since the heyday of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

The difference is that instead of that power being lodged in a single megacorporation or the Seven Sisters of the 1950s (Mobil, Shell Esso, etc.), the fracking revolution is being created by hundreds of smaller, more agile independents who are transforming the technology as fast as they are pumping the oil and natural gas out of the ground.

They are also pumping out jobs by the tens of thousands. It is no longer the case that good-paying blue-collar employment in America is on the verge of extinction. Fracking employs thousands of people in physically demanding jobs that require no college degree and pay, in many cases, six figures.

In North Dakota, where fracking has turned the Bakken Shale formation into the most productive oil patch in the country, an entry-level job hauling water and helping to move rigs and machinery averages $67,000 a year. A well specialist with a couple of years experience will be looking at a $100,000 salary, while a directional driller—the highest job a fracking employee can hold without a B.A.—earns close to $200,000.

Overall, the fracking boom has driven up North Dakota’s per capita income to $57,367 in 2012—the highest in the nation save for Washington D.C. The per capita figure has jumped 31 percent since 2008, the year after the fracking boom got under way, compared with 10 percent for frackless South Dakota.

The other beneficiaries are private landowners, many of them farmers. They have been able to lease out the mineral rights to their land for large sums; and if a well opens up, it quickly becomes a gusher of cash. In North Dakota, that has produced a series of so-called High Plains millionaires; for other landowners, leasing fees have become a lifeline for their farm or property.

Private-property rights, often of middle-income people, are the real drivers behind the fracking revolution, with county and state governments leasing rights on their lands not far behind. It’s one reason so many state capitals have been amenable to the fracking revolution: They’ve been prime beneficiaries.

Under the Obama administration, the number of oil- and gas-drilling leases on federal lands has fallen, and oil production on federal lands is at levels lower than in 2007. Nevertheless, America’s oil production jumped by 1 million barrels a day last year thanks to fracking—even as we’re bringing up more natural gas than at any time in our history.

In less than a decade, the boom has already changed the energy map, with the rise of states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Dakota joining Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska as major energy producers, and with many others poised to join the club, from Illinois and Wisconsin to Alabama and California.

Indeed, the fracking revolution is the one sector of the Obama economy that’s been steadily booming, creating more than 625,000 jobs in the shale-gas sector alone—a number estimated to grow to 870,000 in 2015. Its benefits also flow in trickle-down savings by lowering the cost of energy, particularly natural gas. Mercator Energy, a Colorado-based energy broker, has calculated it’s saving American families more than $32.5 billion in lower natural-gas bills for home heating and electricity.

It has also had a positive impact on U.S. manufacturing, especially petrochemical and plastics firms that have cashed in on lower natural-gas and oil prices and the increasingly abundant supply. From 2010 to 2012, energy-intensive manufacturers added 196,000 jobs as Rust Belt cities such as Lansing, Michigan, and Gary, Indiana, have been revived by cheaper, more abundant energy.

Wallace Tyner, an economist at Purdue University, estimates that between 2008 and 2035 the fracking revolution (oil and gas combined) will add an average of $473 billion per year to the U.S. economy. That’s roughly 3 percent of today’s GDP.

The most striking change, however, has been at the gas pump. Falling U.S. demand for imported oil (a drop of 40 percent since 2005) has lowered global prices overall, and has been a huge factor in oil’s 25 percent price plunge in 2014. Filling up the family car at $2.80 a gallon versus $3.80 a gallon is a great benefit to Americans, especially in low-income households. A strong case can be made that the shale revolution’s impact on natural-gas prices has been the equivalent of a poverty-relief program, since the nation’s poor on average spend four times more of their incomes on home energy than do the more affluent. On average, the drop in natural-gas prices has given low-income families an effective tax rebate of some $10 billion a year.

This is one of the most notable aspects of the fracking revolution. Unlike the computer and digital revolution, for example, which created an industry dominated by Ph.D.’s and college-trained engineers, this is an economic bonanza of particular meaning to those in the middle- and low-income brackets, with the potential to benefit many more.

Yet today’s liberal left is, virtually without exception, implacably opposed to fracking, from the national to the state to the local level. In the forefront have been environmental lobbying interests. In localities such as Ithaca, New York—the hub of the anti-fracking movement in New York State—liberal elites have banded together to prevent an economic transformation that would pad the wallets of their neighbors and upset the socioeconomic status quo.

Of all the national environmental groups, the Sierra Club probably has the mildest official position: that further fracking in the United States must stop until its overall impact on the environment has been studied more carefully. More typical is Greenpeace’s April 2012 joint statement on fracking (co-signed by the Water and Environment Alliance and Friends of the Earth Europe) that makes a fracking well seem not entirely different from a nuclear-waste dump.

That document asserts that “fracking is a high-risk activity that impacts human health and the wider environment”. It warns that natural-gas development through fracking “could cause contamination of surface and groundwater (including drinking water)” and pollutes both soil and air while it “disrupts the landscape and impacts upon rural and conservation areas”.  Greenpeace also claims that fracking and its related activities produce smog, particulates, and toxic methane gas; cause workers to expose themselves to toxic chemicals used in the fracking process; increase “risks of earthquakes”; and lock local communities such as Lycoming County into a “boom and bust economy” that will run out when the oil and gas run out. Greenpeace and its allies insist that these places look to “tourism and agriculture instead”.

The document creates a dire picture, yet nearly every one of these claims is false. Since fracking operates thousands of feet below the aquifer, the risk to drinking water is nil; and there are no proven cases of water supplies becoming contaminated from fracking, despite the thousands of fracking wells drilled both in the United States and Canada. Yet the charge is repeated ad nauseam in anti-fracking ads, films, and pamphlets.

So is the charge that fracking exposes people, including workers, to dangerous chemicals. More than 99 percent of the fluid used to fracture rock in the operation is nothing more than water and sand mixed together. In fact, most of the statistical risks associated with fracking in terms of contact with dangerous chemicals (benzene is a favorite example, radioactive isotopes another, methane yet another) are no higher, and sometimes lower, than those associated with any other industrial job or outdoor activity, including driving a big-rig truck.

The charge that fracking can leak methane into drinking water stems from a Duke University study that examined a mere 68 water wells in a region of Pennsylvania and New York in which 20,000 water wells are drilled each year—and those who conducted the study never bothered to ask whether any methane concentrations existed before the fracking began (which turned out to be the case).

That fracking might cause earthquakes is another oft-repeated alarmist charge with no facts or evidence behind it. In certain conditions, deep underground injections of water and sand used in fracking can lead to detectable seismic activities, but so can favored green projects such as geothermal-energy exploration or sequestering carbon dioxide underground. None of these adds up to seismic rumblings any human being will notice, let alone an Irving Allen movie-style catastrophe. And given the fact that for years there have been thousands of fracking wells around the country that operate without any detectable seismic activity, the argument seems clearly driven more by the need to generate emotion than the imperative to weigh actual evidence.

But perhaps the oddest claim from groups such as Greenpeace is that increasing the use of natural gas will not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite. As natural gas continues to squeeze out coal as a cheap supply of energy, especially for power plants, the greenhouse-gas-emission index will inevitably head downward. In fact, since the shale boom, those emissions in the United States have been cut by almost 20 percent, a number that one would expect to make any environmental activist smile.

All of which suggests that the war on fracking is waged in defiance of facts. And that, in turn, suggests a particular agenda is at work in the anti-fracking camp. A hint of it appears in Greenpeace’s claim that local communities would be better off sticking to “sustainable agriculture and tourism”, meaning organic farming and microbreweries that cater to the tastes of affluent and sophisticated out-of-towners. The war on fracking is a war on economic growth, which the shale revolution has managed to sustain in the middle of the Obama recession, and a war on the upward mobility any industrial revolution like fracking triggers.

It is part of what the Manhattan Institute’s Fred Siegel has called the “liberal revolt against the masses,” and a good place to see it in action is in New York State.

In 2006, then-gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer made a campaign swing through the so-called Southern Tier of upstate New York. The Manhattanite expressed shock at a landscape that was “devastated,” as he put it, and was steadily being abandoned for lack of jobs and economic opportunity. “This is not the New York we dream of,” he said.

Much the same had been true of large portions of rural Pennsylvania. Fracking reversed the downward course there. But the moratorium Spitzer’s successor, Andrew Cuomo, placed on fracking in 2008 before locking it in permanently late last year has frozen those portions of the state in their relative poverty.

Local farmers have been furious over the de facto ban. They are frustrated that the valuable source of income that fracking would generate has been denied them — and that Albany and its liberal enablers are content to crush them under the twin burden of some of the highest property taxes in the country and a regulatory regime that, in Fred Siegel’s words, “makes it hard to eke out a living from small dairy herds.”.

Locals are furious, too, that the ban is denying blue-collar jobs that could help young people find work in a fracking site and could transform local standards of living. In 2012, the state’s health department determined that hydro-fracking could be done safely in the state and concluded that “significant adverse impacts on human health are not expected from routine HVHF (hydro-fracking) operations”.  This was not what state officials wanted to hear, and the report was buried. When someone leaked it to the New York Times, the Department of Environmental Conservation’s spokesperson quickly disavowed it. Meanwhile, Cuomo’s acting health commissioner, Howard Zucker, served as front man for his boss’s permanent ban.

Ithaca is the center of New York’s anti-fracking hardliners. Their leader is Helen Slottje, who organized the Community Environmental Defense Fund to use local zoning regulations to keep fracking out of the surrounding county. She admits that many local people down the hill from Ithaca resent their efforts and think that she and her environmentalist militia are little more than thieves stealing money from their pockets.

But Slottje dismisses their worries, just as she angrily dismisses the charge that she’s a classic example of someone who opposes salutary change because she doesn’t want it in her own back yard. “If a serial killer knocks on your door,” she says, “it’s not NIMBYism to fight back.” She doesn’t bother to wonder whether her comparison of frackers to serial killers might be slightly exaggerated. She simply adds, “We’re not NIMBY, we’re NIABY. Not In Anyone’s Back Yard.”

She is joined in her activism by the Duncan Hines heiress Adelaide Gomer, whose anti-fracking Park Foundation is based in Ithaca and bankrolls much of the activism. “Hydro-fracking will turn our area into an industrial site,” she has proclaimed. After citing the usual charges about poisoning the aquifer, she also adds, “It will ruin the ambience, the beauty of the region.” The beauty of falling-down barns, rusted cars and farm equipment, and abandoned farmhouses may be lost on the locals, but it’s united the rich and influential in New York City. They want to keep things that way — and keep the “creepy advances of environment-trashing frackers” out of the state.

Gomer was able to mobilize demonstrations around the state to maintain the ban despite lobbying in Albany to overturn it, while celebrities such as Alec Baldwin, Robert de Niro, Yoko Ono, Debra Winger, Carrie Fisher, David Byrne, Jimmy Fallon, Martha Stewart, Lady Gaga, and the Beastie Boys signed an Artists Against Fracking petition. Like other Manhattanites, they have no reason to worry much about low land prices in the Southern Tier—but they do worry about development that would benefit the locals while possibly spoiling the view.

By cloaking their social snobbery in the clothes of the environmentalist movement, New York’s well-heeled have managed to forestall the kind of wealth transfer that fracking has brought to Pennsylvania. Indeed, some like Slottje are hoping to spread the same anti-fracking gospel back across the state line and stop Pennsylvania’s economic boom dead in its tracks. …

Anti-frackers also thought they had a shot at stopping the industry in Colorado. The state is one of the wellsprings of environmental activism, after all, with plenty of willing foot soldiers from campuses such as the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Denver. But Colorado also sits on one of the biggest shale fields in North America and is one of the top natural-gas states. In 2013, oil and gas contributed $30 billion to Colorado’s economy, in addition to thousands of jobs.

A serious effort to launch an anti-fracking initiative, which would have banned drilling within 2,000 feet of homes and hospitals and given local community councils effective veto power over fracking efforts, ran aground early in 2014. Colorado Democrats realized it could endanger the reelections of Governor John Hickenlooper and Senator Mark Udall. Fracking is popular with Colorado voters, especially working-class voters. They convinced the multimillionaire congressman Jared Polis to set aside his petition drive for the bill just as Hickenlooper and Udall suddenly turned squishy on the fracking issue, to the fury of local environmentalists. …

When regulatory agencies actually investigate the dire charges made against the industry, most of the charges evaporate under scrutiny. Remaining health and safety matters, such as waste disposal, turn out to be manageable with simple oversight. In the end, this means that the fight to ban fracking outright is steadily turning into a losing battle.

And when politicians and courts decide to quit the field, what’s left for the left? More protests, even civil disobedience. “We will resist this with our bodies, our hearts, and our minds,” one southern Illinois organic farmer told the website Green Progress. “We will block this, we will chain ourselves to trucks.” …

While the activists are lying in the road, fracking and its technologies are constantly evolving. Far from rejecting the environmentalists’ demands for more safety and for meeting community standards, companies are constantly adjusting to make their work as clean as possible. Many now employ reusable water for the hydro-fracking process, for example, while cutting back their use of toxic chemicals. Technologies for water-free fracking are already here and will become increasingly widespread in areas where water resources are scarce. That will be another body blow to fracking’s opponents, who like to claim it wastes water needed for human consumption or agriculture.

And we haven’t even begun to explore the possibilities of natural gas. While fracking has yielded record levels of oil production in the United States, those reserves-in-rock are limited. American natural-gas reserves are not. According to a recent Colorado School of Mines study, they amount to 2.3 quadrillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas in the United States, enough to fuel our energy needs for decades — and the constant technological innovations of the industry will make extracting those reserves increasingly cost-efficient.

Beyond that, there are methane hydrates — deep deposits of crystalline natural gas, embedded in large parts of the Arctic permafrost and ocean bottoms. Even when shale oil and gas have eventually run out, technologies to extract methane hydrates will be able to supply almost limitless energy — according to the U.S. Geological Survey, more than all previous discovered oil and gas put together, even while wind and solar are still trying to figure out how to generate power efficiently.

Progressives who believe themselves to be on the side of science and the little guy at the same time are in fact defying both. This is a battle between the partisans of a discredited ideology from the past and those who see the fast-advancing future.

We were reluctant to cut out any parts of the article, which is long but rewarding. Lean meat all the way through.

If you like the taste we’ve given you, read all of it here.

  • GenghisTom

    There are so many misstatements of fact here, I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s start with Adelaide Gomer: (a) She’s not a “Duncan Hines heiress.” Her father wrote the first Duncan Hines travel guides, which he then turned into a large media corporation called Park Communications. (b) She’s never been involved with mobilizing grassroots organizations. She helps to fund a foundation that does all kinds of educational and other work, and which is highly appreciated in upstate New York. (And unlike the author of this article actually does things around here.) (c) She doesn’t live in Manhattan as the article implies, but Tompkins County.

    I have lived in upstate New York my entire life, growing up in Jamestown, on the western edge of the state. I drive across the southern tier quite frequently. In other words, unlike the person that wrote this article, I didn’t just helicopter in to write a story with a predetermined conclusion. I have never seen a Ron Paul sign in any of my frequent travels around the state, and Paul has never, ever been a significant vote-getter in any New York election. And, speaking of elections, we just held one, and Andrew Cuomo, who put the fracking ban in place, won by a landslide. The only surprise was how well the Green Party candidate, Howie Hawkins, did in the election; the candidate that was even more anti-fracking than Cuomo.

    So please, don’t come up to upstate New York on your next slumming trip and try to lay this kind of faux populism on us. You don’t know anything about this place, and you shouldn’t pretend that you do.

    • You should read more carefully. Did you not notice that we did not write the article? We quote it. Any corrections of fact that you want to draw the author’s attention to should be by letter to Commentary. We do not “pretend” to know anything about New York state. We know the impulse to tyranny when we see it manifested.

      From what you say of Adelaide Gomer, she IS a Duncan Hines Heiress. Whether she lives in Manhattan or not, she said what she said, and does what she does against fracking, and it’s the sort of thing the Manhattan elite say and do. Her actual address and her educational work are irrelevant in the context of this article.

      That you have not noticed the Ron Paul signs is also irrelevant. Your not seeing them does not mean they’re not there. You may be unobservant, or do not drive where the author drove. The author mentions them for a reason: there are people in New York state who would like government to get off their backs.

      It is deeply regrettable that back-riders like Cuomo can win by a landslide. It is deeply regrettable that both the gubernatorial candidates were for banning fracking. Fracking is banned – in a state that could enormously benefit from it – out of prejudice, sentimentality, and aesthetic distaste. That is the point – not whether some detail about the address of an heiress is true, or whether the placement of Ron Paul signs has been verified by you.

  • Don L

    In the free & productive world, the demand for intellectuals is extremely low and nonexistent for elites. However, in the irrational world of central planning, anything other than free market capitalism, intellectuals and ellitists are necessary stooges of the rulers. The stooges get celebrity and funding (fame & fortune) in exchange for defense and support of the depraved and criminal actions of the central rulers. It is not rational selfishness. It is all doomed to collapse. (FREE BOOKLET: “The Clash of Group Interests” by Ludwig von Mises – http://mises.org/library/clash-group-interests-and-other-essays )

    The article references Rockefeller’s Standard oil. Intellectuals and elitists did brilliant work for the rulers with pushing the anti-trust scam and the Robber Baron myths. Unfortunately not free, it’s paramount everyone read (available from Amazon) “The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America” by Burton W. Folsom. And, discover the political cronyism behind anti-trust legislation with (FREE DOWNLOAD) “Antitrust: The Case for Repeal” (ONLY 100 pages) by Dominick Armentano. More evidence that what you learned in school will hurt you. It is my opinion, that the attacks on Rockefeller were the template for the current leftist greenies.

    The Burro, comments posted herein, makes good points and I don’t need to re-invent the wheel. I can only add that we too often get hung up, like VA medicine, in treating symptoms rather than the underlying cause. Yes, the FED is thegenerator of corruption and the financier behind the looney elites and intellectuals. But, the FED only exists because being re-elected is the goal of politics.

    So, I’m close to launching. My current slogan is: Of, By & For the Governed…NOT Reelection.

    Other ideas are:

    Ruling-Class IS NOT in the Constitution,
    It’s to Secre Rights…NOT Reelection.
    Ruling-Class IS NOT “We the People”

    toying with the word Dynasty (Bush, Adams, Clintons, Kennedys lots of fathers, sons and daughters in Congress)

    Any ideas or thoughts let me know.

    Drill Baby Drill!!!

    • Don L

      Sorry. I don’t know why the image pasted twice.

      • The Burro

        As a further indication of the joys of Socialism and the welfare community to which those of us as taxpayers can only dream of achieving, I just had to share this snippet with The L and Liz.

        As part of a new approach to Section 8 and welfare assistance, Martinez California instituted new procedures to “hasten and improve” processing of the deserving poor’s documents to place them in middle class homes without making any effort whatsoever. Said procedures included installation of new software, along with use of a system called “Go Section 8.com”.

        Go 8 is an online site which must be used to authenticate the rental comparables used to assess “competitive” rents in a local area. These rents would then justify an offer to a landlord foolish enough to accept Section 8 tenants. The numbers agreed to would then be added to the mountain of paperwork S8 produces, and voila – a rental agreement could be put together, and the tenant moves in, typically paying 25% of the total rent, and can then proceed to destroy the building as is their custom.

        So far so good. Go8 gets its data from the “net” ie Craigslist. So……………imagine the chaos that erupted when……………………the software stopped working. With no comparables, the ENTIRE SECTION 8 SYSTEM of Contra Costa County ground to a halt. Apparently 3000 families with all documents submitted for approval cannot get that as no comparables are available. This means they have no place to live!

        A free market brain would now say, “Bugger Go8, it can go to Hell” and proceed to evaluate Craigslist for comps which I am happy to report was working as of an hour ago…….but no…the Government Employees have stood their ground. To quote one lady, “we will not under any circumstances use Craigslist even if that is where the data comes from. We have our standards and policies!”

        So the very system set up to “aid” the poor and give them homes for basically free, has now got them living under bridges, in garages, with other families etc even though they are ready to occupy legitimately the homes they are being given for free more or less. All for policies and standards. Such compassion, such caring persons….

        Now if you think that is looney, how about Vallejo, which in the middle of the most heated rental real estate market in decades, CUT the rents the Section 8 wallas could pay. Shock, horror and big surprise, few S8 wallas are becoming S8 tenants – no one will rent to them! I just did not expect that, did you?

        And finally, my tenant S8-anonymous just called me to tell me she is “short of funds” as her illegal live-in boyfriend just had to get to Pennsylvania by air and thus is unable to pay her $40 of a $1,700 rent as she gave him the dough for the flight (is that all it costs to get to Pa?).

        And finally, finally, a new interpretation of “clean, neat, and tidy” as the S8 tenant put the condition of the premises vacated “under duress” last week. This same tenant bought a BMW Suv 4.4I recently, but was unable to pay the subsidized portion of the rent. See the photos attached.

        Us Burros are getting a bit worried about the humans. We may have to take over for a while to straighten things out.

        The Burro

        • Don L

          I don’t hear/read from you in months and already…so much in so short a time. Thank you.

          Now, I ‘Bordeauxed’ you as I said I would so I’m not sure I read this correctly. You were the landlord? Say it ain’t so Joe!.

          IT’S FREE: “Bureaucracy” by Ludwig von Mises — http://mises.org/library/bureaucracy

          The moment a government bureau was involved…”I told you so” was applicable.

          Correct me if I’ve got this wrong…too: The Fallacy of the Commons” where ownership does not follow, protection and sustainability doesn’t either.

          So ask ‘J’ why she didn’t like my post. Was it the comment about the intellectuals not being in demand? LOL. I probably should have defined that tighter. Oh well. (There’s Jillian and Ayn Rand. Who else? Low demand given the thousands with billboards.)

          Say, have you finished your Pik…whoops…Pee reading yet? Zero percent interest rate and counterfeiting money has nothing to do with unnatural transfer of wealth from those without to those who didn’t earn it. Now, THAT is pie shaped.

          Back to images…it isn’t even race/ethnicity based. It’s an it isn’t mine so screw you-based deal. Race and ethnicity come in when it also involves “I’m entitled cause you dun me wrong”.

          Again, it all boils down to the government according to SHOULD. And, that always entails bureaucracy which means policy before end user…failure. You sure this isn’t about folks who ought be sectioned 8 (US Military terminology for discharge for being crazy: Maxwell Klinger wanted one)?

          • The Burro

            I do love Mises on Bureaucracy. I also enjoyed Max Weber but his conclusions are a little different to Ludwig. I just wish Ludwig had written a little more lightly.

            I am still at the Pee. I have got all but about 50 pages left. I got side-tracked by The Forgotten Depression by Grant which I am now reading for a third time in case I missed a point. Mr. Grant was the personification of geniality when I called him on his book and I believe I held up the entire world’s bond market as we chatted on the day he was about to issue the Interest Rate Observer. He did take a moment out which means he is a Rightist.

            I am also digesting Hall of Mirrors by Barry Eichengreen. I naturally rang him up to offer a lunch so as to put him right on a number of things. Of course, as a fully-paid up member of the caring society of Leftist professors in Beserkely he not only did not take my call, but has not attempted to return it. I am sure he is busy doing good, and his version of the Depression, and the recent Great recession is just a monument to the Left’s desire to interfere and run business. More controls, more laws more cock-ups…………..

            He does not mention at all the counter example of the 1920-21 recession Grant covers, or at least as far as I have gone in his tome. The 20-21 deal was a damn sharp depression which turned right around after prices dropped and brought out buyers, and buyers of labour as well as real wages adjusted for productivity shrank. Could it be that Capitalists looked at the world and saw the chance to make a bob or two? Surely not says Greeny, let us have our friends in the kleptocracy show us how. And we will all still be good people doubtless.

            I will say Greeny has some juicy tit-bits in his tome. But more Government? Better to have no response as Harding did and lo and behold, our old friend the invisible hand shows up and yanks the economy into the roaring 20’s. I fear the invisible jack-boot is in our future for the sins of Yellen & shoutin’ politicos. Print money honey and all will be well.

            Back to Peeing: your very much on-point critique of his manifesto is very correct in my view. What I find very interesting is after consuming his tome (almost) and also digging up a lot of stuff about income and wealth distribution, ignoring his blatant mistakes, errors and omissions, one discovers the Pee KNEW about a lot of the work pointing away from his conclusions and EVEN wrote some of it himself! Pee & mates are blatantly ignoring the work of others and themselves to let him produce what should be called “Against Capital: A New Communist Manifesto.” I smell bad fish here, not to mention bad carrots which I am very sensitive to.

            The fabulous Jill has tentatively agreed to let me prepare for her a short paper for publication, and I will get to it. But Don El, Old Comrade, it is so hard when the markets are calling and beckoning me to make profit, and the workers just call out for exploitation. There is just too much to do and achieve.

            Watch out for the Bordeaux: the Frenchies, that wicked lot, may have sent it overseas to curb the appetites of the Capitalistas.

            May your bottle never run dry, just like your pen.

            The Burro

            • Don L

              The ’20 – ’21 was a lesson they deny. The FED was too new and, fortunately, did not act to keep the bubble afloat. Regretably, thereafter, they created a new bubble…it was GREAT when it burst.

              Always good to hear from you. And, the moment the FED rate goes up…Sell short!!!

  • liz

    “A discredited ideology from the past” is exactly what this, and every leftist “cause” is.
    Leftists not only live in a fantasy world, they don’t even recognize that it’s a rerun of a remake of regurgitated rehash.

    • The Burro

      Our Leftist brothers and sisters (God how I hate such false-faced intimacy) naturally want to preserve poverty. If they did not, where would all the lovely Socialists get work?

      In a recent analysis I did privately, I looked at the delivery cost for Section 8. It turns out about $93 of bureaucracy delivers $7 of financial assistance. Shut this none-sense down and where do the fabulous winners so employed go?

      On top of that, it makes the left feel and look good to have a lot of vile fiends to pass money to and feel benificent. Do the “poor” need that? Well, I do know every single person on Section 8 I deal with is working, and whether that is legal or not is none of my business. Last time I reported it I was told bluntly it was “none of my concern”. The last “poor” person I had a contretemps with just bought a 2002 gorgeous BMW Crossover Van. My car cost $1,000, hers, $20,000+. Makes you think, eh.

      And let us not forget the progenitor of the great bureaucracy, Franklin Deluded Rosyfelt. In 1933, March, the bottom was in on the Depression. Not due to him, but to economic reality. Only 10% of the Dems who had helped him to power were able to get a job in Washington DC that month…………………..so let us invent jobs for the boys and “experiment” with the economy. In spite of his abysmal performance the invisible hand reached out and took the economy up. The economy carried the loonies he took on board and all before it. The fastest growth ever seen in the US was afoot – and of course, FDR claimed it was all due to him, the stamp-collecting fiddler.

      Now, I do understand the feelings of the elite. When one is a privileged person it is simply awful to have the yokels move in next door. They are just not the same you know, and may even be foul-smelling thinkers of the Republican variety, may the Lord save us all. In my own family group we have a fellow burro known as Burro Old Vartus from a very distinguished US line, and a Right man too boot. But he does not like entrepreneurs, and persons what does not tawk proper. It is just like England.

      The invisible hand will win the day, as it always does. But I much prefer the more forceful invisible jack-boot with the hand becomes when not given its sway. Just ask our friends in Greece and Spain what happens when Jacky-boy pops up. Let us hope the Ithaca winners end up in a sink hole and find it full of shale, and they end up totally fracked up. A suitable demise I’d say.

      • liz

        Your analysis of section 8 is a perfect illustration of the meaning of “useful idiot”.
        Not only are the people on the receiving end of the $7.00 still poor, they are willing to believe the lie that the ones getting the rest of that $93.00 are their “benefactors”, while the people it’s been stolen from in taxes are their evil “oppressors”.