novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

French Economist Thomas Picketty has published a new tome touted by the left entitled Capital in the Twenty-First Century.  I picked up this book (downloaded the Kindle version, actually) because I simply could not believe what the progs were saying about it, which is that Picketty claims that, if the average return on capital (r) exceeds the rate of growth of the economy (g), then wealth inequality increases.

I read this and said to myself, “Self, these fool progs obviously cannot understand what this man is talking about.  It is obvious that he must mean the growth in the valuation of the economy; that is, of all the capital goods in the economy.”  This is, of course, quite obvious.  If the average annual return on capital investments is 5%, but the total valuation of the capital of the economy increases 6% per year, then someone besides the original investors must own that newly created 1%.  And if the total valuation of all the goods in the economy only goes up 4%, then the investors must be getting their extra 1% from someone else, and wealth inequality will increase.

Alas, the progs were right, and Picketty’s hypothesis, which they swallowed hook, line, and sinker, is a total dud.  He really is using the wrong growth rate for comparison.

A simple example can illustrate the problem.  Let us assume that economic output (GDP) does not grow from one year to the next.  But the economy does still have output.  It is still producing durable goods — cars, televisions, houses, etc.  If the production of those goods is greater than the depreciation of existing goods (cars, televisions, and houses eventually wear out and are replaced), then the total valuation of the goods in the country increases.  If that valuation increases more than the return on the capital invested to create them, then wealth inequality must decrease, even with no growth in output.

Still, Picketty’s tome is valuable for the data it presents.  It will also be used as a tool for the progs to argue for a wealth tax (as Picketty recommends).  Thus, the work is important because one must understand its premise, the data it presents, and the flaw in Picketty’s logic, so that one can successfully counter the arguments the progs will make based on this work.  Thus, I will endeavor to write several posts on this book, one section at a time.

A government “fix” is like “fixing” a cat — it’s never quite right afterwards.

Well, the bean-counters at the Social Security Administration decided it was time for a Cost-of-Living adjustment (COLA) for beneficiaries.  There wasn’t one last year.  No inflation, they said.  So the great adjustment for this year is 0.3% — about $4 per month for the average recipient.  That’s one extra Big Mac per month.

Meanwhile, the Social Security Wage Base will go up 7.34%, from $118,500 to $127,200.  How does that work?

Simple — they just use different calculations.  The benefits are increased by the inflation rate, and the wage base (when there is a COLA) is increased based on the Average Wage Index.  Isn’t that cute?

Well, it turns out that the Wage Base has increased 35% over the last twelve years, but the Cost-of-Living Adjustment has only given beneficiaries a 22% increase.

Does the word BOHICA mean anything to you?

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

  • Tacitly supported the illegal coup in Ukraine which ousted the pro-Russian president, giving Russia the excuse it needed to reclaim the Crimea and parts of ethnically-Russian eastern Ukraine.  (I guess that’s the “Reset with Russia” she talked about.  Well done.)
  • Sat on her hands while our people were murdered in Benghazi.
  • Watched and cheered the Arab Spring, which tore apart the Middle East.
  • Failed to negotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, resulting in a power vacuum which was then filled by ISIS.
  • Funneled arms to ISIS, with the intent that they would be used against Assad.  ISIS is using those arms against us, and Assad is still in power.  (Thanks in large part to our “Reset with Russia,” of course.

Clinton was given executive power, and failed every time it mattered.

Debate Round II


I’ll bet they leaked the questions to the Clinton campaign.

And already, both don’t answer the question.

Of course, Obama said Hillary is not fit to be president.

On to comments!

If you haven’t been watching it, you are missing out. I’m sure you can get a transcript tomorrow. The questions are very bias and, surprise, against Trump. What makes this show worth while is watching a bubbling idiot in the form of Timmy, interrupting at ever moment, using data from unreliable and friendly forces, and playing the “current affairs” card instead of dealing with the issues. He knows more of what Trump will do then Trump and Pence. Timmy proposes all the same lies as Hillzilla and then lies about what Trump wants. Pathetic. Low info voters will suck this up and vote Hillzilla. Didn’t we say the first time of Obama that “we told you so”? And hen, after 4 years of having Obama himself prove his ineptness and show his intent on the ruination of America, stupid people did it again? Why? Because Dems lie and the people suck it up. All Timmy is doing is lies, slander and mud slinging. Go figure.

Yeah, the swabbies are a little slow coming of age with other branches of service but the political assholes (read: government PC police) have the fix in and now there will be a better integrated and understandable Navy. I am throwing up in my mouth as I write this. I don’t even have the words to try any type justification of this madness and the words that come up against this BS would make even a sailor blush. I would ask you to just read the article and decide for your self. At the bottom on the right, in the “documents” section, it talks about the outline to bring enlisted women aboard our subs. Only liberals and idiots (redundancy) could dream stuff like this up. I will part with this: no longer will we call them “Navy corpseman”. Now it shall only be Navy corpse. How very appropo!