novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts published by jack

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!

Well, in this case the city.

According to The New York Post, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development wants to make the value of a Section 8 voucher depend on the housing prices in the specific neighborhood in which it is used, rather than on the housing prices in the metropolitan area in which it is used. The idea is to spread the poor into the middle class and upper middle class neighborhoods, the safer neighborhoods, rather than having them all in “the ‘hood.”

As the article points out, HUD tried this is Dallas and Dubuque with dismal results. The criminals just took the crime with them to the suburbs:

A 2011 study sponsored by HUD found that adults using more generous Section 8 vouchers did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.

Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods, ruining the quality of life for existing residents.

“Males … were arrested more often than those in the control group, primarily for property crimes,” the study found.

Dubuque, Iowa, for example, received an influx of voucher holders from projects in Chicago — and it’s had a problem with crime ever since. A recent study linked Dubuque’s crime wave directly to Section 8 housing.

No surprise. You can take the hoodlum out of the ‘hood, but you cannot take the ‘hood out of the hoodlum.

Where there is more to steal, the hoodlums are more likely to steal. Where there are fewer hoodlums likely to steal, the cops have an easier time rounding up “the usual suspects.”

They did not become smarter or better educated just by moving to the ‘burbs. Even if they had, they would still be competing against better-qualified people for the jobs in the area. So they are less likely to get jobs than if they were in the inner cities, and more likely to turn to crime, being in a target-rich environment.

Once again, another prog policy is shown to be destructive to Blacks, so the progs want more of it, to do more harm to Blacks, to keep them dependent on the government handouts.


Is Donald Trump the perfect candidate? No. But he is the best option we will have in November. If either Sec. Clinton or Sen. Sanders wins in November, they would appoint progs to the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg is 83, and will probably retire within the next few years. Justice Kennedy is 79, and Justice Breyer is 77. The next president may have the opportunity to appoint four Supremes.

We cannot allow a President Clinton or a President Sanders to make those appointments.