Handy Resources

Understanding the 2012 Election

My Sister's Blog New!

The Desktop Dyno

Salem Gravity Gran Prix

Jordan's Eagle Project.

Duke Boys Car Chase

LoL Cartoons

Logic Primer

Gymkhana Practice

Compass Course Spreadsheet

Complete Orienteering Course Files

Things you may not know about Sarah Palin

Amazing Grace on the Sax

Obama's Magic 8 Ball

Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe

Refresh to get latest blog entry

I have an image stuck in my mind from election night 2012. The media had just confirmed that President Obama had been re-elected. The news feed I was watching cut to a shot of crowds out in the streets cheering his win. What sticks in my mind is the people who had climbed up in trees to display their jubilation for the cameras.

The impression I had was that it was as if the citizens of Poland were cheering the arrival of the Nazi tanks.

Okay, I get it, these are the same morons who make gestures for the cameras behind people being interviewed for the evening news. These are not politically engaged citizens.

But that doesn't undermine my point. Those simpletons don't follow the issues and have no understanding of anything, and yet we have to live under the consequences of their vote.

The question I'm exploring in this pointless exercise was summed up in a bumper sticker: "Does your Obama bumper sticker make you feel stupid yet?"

It's kind of a mathematical question. Are the conditions in question mutually exclusive? Is Does the condition that makes someone capable of voting that way preclude the ability for them realize the folly of their choice?

Here we are two years into the second term and I have to wonder, is anyone still climbing trees to cheer? With the challenges of ISIS and Ebola and jobs and immigration . . . and a countless other really heavy things that have to be dealt with, are we still good with someone whose only qualification is that he's black? Or does it now seem like we could have used an actual grownup in that role?

Not long into President Obama's second term I posted something like "Ha-hah! Can you believe Mitt Romney said 'Binders of women?' Enjoy your crappy economy, America."

I've struggled to come up with a suitable illustration of this effect—the deal where a person isn't seeing the consequences of what he's fighting so hard to get. By my calculations there are about 11.3 bazillion ways to explain it. It's the child throwing a fit about not being able to play with the cuddly little bear cub . . . or razor blades . . . or poison . . . or . . .

Maybe the best illustration I've seen is the democrats furiously rowing a canoe toward a waterfall. They are oblivious to it and the Republicans are trying to row the other direction. But the democrats are reproaching the Republicans for trying to save them.

That's one aspect of it—the other side can't or won't see beyond what they want.

The other is that all of us have to live under the consequences of that horrible choice, not just the ones who took a minute off from playing video games to get swept up in a "movement." When you watch a man demonstrate himself to be the worst President of our lifetime, then re-elect him for reasons having nothing to do with his ability to do the job, you're not just playing American Idol. There may be actual consequences. The problem is that those of us who didn't vote for him have to suffer along with the simpletons who did.

Along with trying to keep simps from hurting themselves, we are engaging in self-defense. We all suffer when they set the building on fire. 'Cause that's what this is. This is like the genius who wanted to commit suicide, so she set fire to the apartment building where she lived.

You want to prove you're not a racist? That's great. But I happen to live in the country that you're burning down to prove it.

So, those are a few good illustrations of what's happening.

Now here's a not-so-great one. But I have to post it because it occurred to me. Hey, I don't make the rules I just . . . well, I guess I do make the rules . . .

But I don't pretend to defend their propriety!

At the beginning of Desert Storm someone was interviewing a general about the possibility of the other side using chemical weapons. He said that it wasn't as likely as you'd think because they weren't nearly as effective as you might think. He pointed out that when you set off canisters of poisonous gas, you have to suit up to protect yourself from it as well.

You're always hearing the democrats say that we are "The party of no."

Obviously I don't speak for all Republicans, but I can say that from my standpoint that's not true. It's not true at all.

When it comes to the democrats committing atrocities against the country I love, I am the party of "Oh, Hell no!"

See, this is the same old thing. The people who call out the bad people are somehow the bad guys. President Obama can tax the pants off us, but we are worse 'cause we're haters for not liking it.

Why do they keep using those tactics against us? Because it works, that's why.

We have the unimaginable situation where the US government forces us to buy something whether we need it or not. That should never have happened, but it did. But you're not hearing Republicans saying that we need to repeal Obamacare. Those who say anything say we need to "repeal and replace" it.

This is a direct result of accusations that we're the party of "no." Omigosh, we can't just oppose it! They say we have to propose something better.

Here's something better: Nothing. Get the government the Hell out of health insurance.

Anything that was wrong with the health care insurance system was a result of the government getting in the way of Free Enterprise. I know, I know, I'm totally in favor of regulation and oversight and certification. I'm not talking about that aspect of it at all. I'm talking about prohibitions against selling across state lines and stupid crap like that. That the sort of BS that made the system screwed up in the first place, so proposing more government involvement makes as much sense as taking a laxative to cure your diarrhea.

Saying that we have to replace Obamacare with any kind of government system running our health insurance is like saying let's replace that broken leg with a broken arm. Actually, I prefer to have all my limbs intact.

In society as it's structured people have names. This comes in handy when you're in a meeting with a bunch of human organisms and you need to say "Brayden, I need you to design the linkage, and Ian, you find a vendor for the bearings." Names are also handy when you go to vote and they need to check to see if the person who wants to vote is the person who is registered to vote. See, the idea is that only people who are registered get to vote and they only get to vote once each.

When you have to register to vote, you use that name. To do that you have to be a real person, you have to be alive.

You have to register to vote. Why even have people register if it doesn't ensure whether they're the ones who vote?

Not requiring ID to vote only accomplishes one thing—it allow someone other than the person who is registered to cast a vote.

Opponents of Voter ID (those in favor of voter fraud) say that it's too hard to get an ID.

Well that's an easy argument to counter. It's not hard to get an ID. You have to have an ID for anything you do in life. Is registering to vote any less onerous than getting an ID?

That's where the other side will try to tie you up. It's hard! No, it's not. Yes, it is! It's so hard! It's not hard at all.Well did you know that in some states . . .

Your natural inclination is to keep talking about how easy it is, because it is. It's as easy to get an ID as it is to get yourself to the polling place.

It's easy to counter the argument that voter ID is too hard. But having that argument takes the discussion down a path that doesn't matter; it steers you away from the issue. That's why the other side takes you there knowing how flimsy their position is.

So do me a favor. Don't use that tack. Modify it just slightly

Some people love their jobs. To some people it's a burden to work for a paycheck. In either case that's what you have to do to pay the bills.

So give them that—okay, it's really really really hard to get an ID. They'll be all flabbergasted, 'cause they know it's not hard at all.

But how hard it is has no bearing on whether it has to be done. If you are casting a vote as a person, you have to be that person and be willing to show it. How easy it is has nothing to do with whether it should be done. The question is completely immaterial.

Make me a list of things you're exempted from doing because they're too hard. Going to work? Obeying traffic laws? Raising kids, dealing with weather, being sick?

During a discussion about drivers obeying traffic signals, would you say "Wait a minute. Was the traffic signal designed by a minority?"? That's how much bearing it has on the discussion.

Then you can move on to the idea that anything worth doing requires some effort. Is taking an eye test too much of a burden to drive a car? Should we let pilots fly airplanes without training? That's a ridiculous stretch, but it's not an absurd one. It's an illustration of degree in the same type. Things have requirements.

Finally, finish up with this.

So, again, what things do you get to not do if it's too hard for you?

Buying freaking health insurance through Obamacare? Can you think of anything more burdensome than that? Anyone who's done it would rather tow a train with razor wire in their mouth. But you have to do it. It's the law. Implemented by the same useless imbeciles who say that presenting ID to vote is too much of a burden.

As soon as you quit forcing me buy your stupid socialized medicine racket I'll think about whether you should be able to vote as Bugs Bunny without proving you are.

Riding in the bed of the "Too hard to get ID!" pickup is the "Some people won't get to vote!" load.

So?

Am I the only one who thinks it's a dumb system to let every idiot that can fog a mirror vote? Holy crap, I can hear the cries of outrage right now . . .well, if this were an actual blog that people actually read maybe I could imagine them.

But why? Why is the Right to Vote a sacred claim you have that requires no effort on your part? Is this something like the company domain dumping your work to install updates that we just accept 'cause that's just the way it is?

I don't see anything unreasonable about a test for qualifying to vote.

Why should decisions about how our country is run be made by people who don't care about and aren't the least bit engaged in that process? Do we allow hipsters to make the rules for NASCAR?

If you aren't willing or capable of making the effort to get an ID, there's your first test.

Maybe the best test would be paying taxes. If you pay taxes, you get to vote. It makes no sense for people who I support casting votes to make me keep supporting them.

It occurs to me that I'm wasting precious blog space on this uber-influential forum discussing something that isn't that big of a deal. People who aren't engaged in the process don't typically vote. But Obama got elected somehow.

It's like I've said time and again . . . at least twice . . . in the last five years . . . democracy means not always getting your own way

I will never forget when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. Bill Clinton explained it this way (I am NOT making this up): "This just shows that the people approve of my policies, but they don't think I'm moving fast enough."

Uh . . . seriously?

I guess the silver lining is that democrats are weakened by Obama.

Early in his first term I blogged about that. Liberalism is no longer an abstract concept. You wanted it? There it is. Behold. These are the fruits of liberal policies.

But it's a silver lining on a very dark cloud. They look like idiots but we who didn't vote for him have to suffer under the consequences of him being there.

And right about here is where I came into this movie . . .

It's fascinating that the left cites how much trouble it is to get an ID as the reason to not have voter ID laws. You know what's more bothersome than getting an ID?

Signing up for Obamacare.

By about a million times.

Yet they have no problem forcing us to do that.

Here's a handy comparison of how hard getting an ID is compared to signing up for that obscenity known as Obamacare.

Getting an ID	Signing up for Obamacare
Pick up a TV Remote	Build a TV from scratch
Brush your teeth	Pull your teeth out with pliers
Punch your pillow	Fight the Minnesota Vikings' offensive line
Read a Facebook post	Translate Homer's Odyssey from the original Greek
Take a bath	Swim across the Atlantic
Listen to soothing music	Listen to Hillary cackle while your genitals are hooked up to jumper cables

I'm a loser.

The reason that little tidbit is so fascinating to you is because it makes me uniquely qualified to comment on Barack Obama.

See, Limbaugh and Medved are hard-working, successful, intelligent people. As such, they frame the world in those terms. "Well, this is what just what people do. I know, because I am a people and this is what I do." You know, it's the projection thing that I'm always flapping my gums about.

I don't see it that way. You could fill a library with the list of things I don't accomplish in a day. Then fill another library with the unimportant things that I'm doing instead of accomplishing something. I understand Barack Teenager Obama in a way that Medved and Limbaugh and others can't.

Uh . . . It's an interesting irony that the very thing that makes me uniquely qualified to comment on the loser who's in the Oval Office also prevents me from presenting it in a forum that anyone will ever see . . .

Anyway . . .

It just makes sense. What other window can you view human motivation through? So you understand why Medved is always trying to convince us that Obama has the best interests of the country at heart. He can't imagine someone who just doesn't give a crap. That's not the way Medved is put together.

Limbaugh can't imagine how Obama can just do nothing without it being a conscious strategy. Rush is always thinking and working and trying to get things done. In his mind that's what people do, so Obama must be doing it.

Limbaugh and Medved put thought and planning and preparation and effort into everything they do. So they assume that everyone, including Obama, must do the same. Especially in a job as important and the Leader of the Free World.

He doesn't.

Obama is not a hardworking, intelligent, engaged, diligent person. He's a celebrity. He is not driven. Obama likes doing things he likes. He's never had to put in any effort. He steps out on the stage and the power of his personality makes people faint. So he's never had to learn to apply himself. If it takes more effort than reading a speech, that putz is just not up to it.

Read this article. Just do it.

Money quote:

There was nothing about Barack Obama’s background that should have led anyone to think that he would be up to the job of being President and as it turns out, he isn’t.

---

See, I'm not driven. I don't even put any effort into this web site, which is one of the things that I do to keep doing anything important.

That's why after months of posting nothing I'm just going to link to these two articles, then pin all the cartoons up here that I've been saving to comment on, with no comment at all.

First article is making my point that the people in the White House are not geniuses at all.

Thank you, John Ransom.

It's like the old saying: "Never ascribe to evil what can adequately be explained by incompetence."

In a related story, Joe Biden is far too stupid to be corrupt.

Isis. Remember Isis? Back before ebola? Yeah.

Well, as it turns out all that was just cause by global warming.

Okay, remember, some of these are months old. They all deserved comment at the time, when they made sense. Now they just . . . whatever. I'm just throwing them up here with in no particular order and without explanation or heading. I've gotta' get back to all the even less important things than posting to a blog that no one reads.

Oh. My. Golly gosh doggone it heck. If you could get energy from gall, we'd never have to buy another drop of oil. Obama has enough to power the country until the Second Coming.

Omigosh, how do I not comment on this? Netanyahu is the chicken***t?! Oh, here's how I don't comment. This article says it better than I could. That little putz Obama is Pee Wee next to a real leader like Netanyahu.

---

See you next . . . year . . . or something . . .

Maybe you heard about the man who shot the drunk driver who had just killed his two sons.

You may think that's not right. I 100% agree with you—it's not right.

What would be right is for the man to shoot the drunk before the drunk killed his sons.

Let's say you are concerned about cops abusing power, especially white cops mistreating black people. You hear my opinion that the people who were rioting in Ferguson are morons and they are the bad guys. So maybe you get mad at me that. "Dude, why are you on the side of The Man and not supporting The People?"

Oh, you know what? You're right. Carry on.

Ben Franklin said it very well:

If you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others, and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fix'd in your present opinions, modest, sensible men, who do not love disputation, will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error.

If you sincerely have concerns about police brutality issues or police racism issues, you are on my side, 'cause what's happening in Ferguson is not helping the people. It's what I call a rape hoax. You're familiar with the concept of a boy crying wolf, which is the same thing. I may have to adjust my terminology to "Race Hoax." What those idiots are doing is cementing everyone's conviction that the cops are the good guys. Is that what you want to happen if they really are the bad guys?

I'm talking about people with genuine concerns. That's different from the people who are like Eric holder and "side with" the people of Ferguson who want the cop lynched whether or not he did anything wrong.

You may be saying to yourself, "That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with Barack Obama being an incompetent idiot?"

This is what it has to do with it:

Obama is a failure as a President. He's probably an okay guy, but he's just not leader material. Some people aren't. He quite simply is not suited to be a leader . . . of anything.

You may be caught up in how "historic" it is that the press elected a half-black American to be President. So explain to me how his bumbling incompetence is helping your cause?

If you are sincere in your beliefs about the virtues of liberalism . . . no, you know what? Great job! Carry on. Yeah, Barack Obama is your man. Don't listen to me with my advice about how he comes across!

Oh, and please don't let Harry Reid quit spouting off. We love it on our side when he explains how you guys think. Carry on!

Here's my take on people criticizing me: It's always a good thing.

If they have a point, then that's an opportunity for me to improve, and that's good.

If they're off base and just bashing then I know they're dipschlacks, and that's good information to have as well.

You've probably heard clips of Obama decrying the practice of companies moving out of the country to escape the onerous taxes he imposes on them. It's maddening to hear that miserable little pipsqueak talk about it. Like you have some sort of obligation to just take it or you're not loyal.

Here's the greatest quote you'll ever hear on the topic, from the pen of the great philosopher of the interwebs F. Leany:

If a woman leaves her husband for abusing her, which one of them is disloyal?

 

 

---

Obama drives me crazy. It's just maddening to listen to that that nincompoop talk. He can do anything to you that he wants, but you're the bad guy if you want a better situation.

Church Lady: Well isn't that convenient?

Two things.

One. This always reminds me of the lady who called in to the talk show wringing her hands "Oh, I wish people wouldn't talk about the democrats like they do."

Really? Do you wish it as much as I wish the democrats would quit doing the horrific things that make us say bad things about them? They shake their little fists and stomp their little feet about how we're calling them names, but they don't seem to put the same energy into correcting the heinous things that we're pointing out.

They can do whatever they want and then we're the bad guys for calling them on it. Exact same thing as Obama saying "We're going to tax the snot out of you and you're the evil one if you don't like it!"

What a pile of crap.

Two. Barack Obama has absolutely no understanding of the principles that make America. Freedom, that's what makes America. Don't just dismiss that as a word that you've heard over and over and over. Think about it. It's the fundamental characteristic of humanity. The deep desire to pursue your Free Agency.

You open a restaurant, people like it, they come in droves, you raise prices, they go somewhere else. Freedom.

When you have to impose restrictions there's a problem somewhere else with your system. If you have to force someone to buy something (Obamacare—so great they made a law to force you to buy it!) or pay a certain amount, there's a serious problem.

They archetypical example is movie theater food. There's a theater in Spanish Fork where I will buy food, 'cause the prices are reasonable. They get my money. The other theaters don't. If you have to post a sign saying "No Outside Food Allowed" I guaran-golly-durn-tee you the prices you charge for food are exorbitant. If they weren't you wouldn't have to force people to buy your food. Make it to my benefit to give you money of my own free will, I will give you money. That's how free will works.

If you have to make a speech saying people are evil who don't want to submit to your extortion, you are clueless about what made America great.

They said an "American" got killed fighting for ISIS. Nope. He wasn't an American. Just because he grew up wherever or his parents or grandparents settle between two particular oceans doesn't make him American.

Obama is not American. Not in any meaningful sense of the word. His mom was American. He was born in America. He's not an American.

Dinesh D'Souza, there's an American. Born in India of generations of natives of India. Loves America. Chooses to be here. Actively works to try to keep America great. There's an American.

Did I just lump Obama in with a terrorist? I guess I did.

Obama, who as you recall is not a President but he plays one on TV, was a little miffed that he had to interrupt his golfing to talk about some . . . whadyacallit? . . . American, who got beheaded. Obama wants to play golf. He doesn't want to make decisions or formulate strategy or deal with bad guys. What does he care? He has the greatest private security force in the world. What does he care if someone else is in danger?

That's how simple this is. Obama is the teenager who would rather play video games than help you dig a ditch. Is that so hard to understand?

But Rush Limbaugh cautions us not to be fooled. "Look! Right there! See where he's just sitting there doing nothing?! It's brilliant! It's a brilliant strategy!"

Obama acknowledged that the optics of that were really bad, which he didn't realize, because, of course, he doesn't pay any attention to "Political theater."

He was choking back tears? Yeah, like Clinton was crying at Ron Brown's funeral. What a pile of crap that man is. And political theater? That's the exact thing that got him elected.

Pardon me while I go throw up.

Joe Scarborough had an interesting Limbaughian take on that. He says that to us domestically, yeah, the optics were terrible. But it was all for the terrorists watching who were thinking "Allash! What do we have to do to get under this guy's skin?! Ice water in his veins! he just goes golfing after we kill one of his own guys."

I honestly couldn't tell if he was kidding or not.

You expect to include the link when you didn't even click on the last one where Obama doesn't engage in Political theater? Nope, not gonna' do it.

Obama admitted that he has no strategy for dealing with ISIS in Syria.

I was really intrigued that he's so out of it that he admitted it. Anyone who's not sealed in a cryogenic suspension chamber in a secret government lab knows that he's never had a strategy for foreign policy ever. (Omigosh—he is the stupidest human every to occupy that office. Holy Freaking . . . anyone who's paying attention is just shaking his head)

But to openly admit it? That signals a new shift in the "I'm a complete idiot and you're stuck with me—suckahs!" policy.

Okay, so that moron points out the obvious, that he has no strategy, then he figures out "Oh, wait, did I say that out loud?" Time for damage control.

This is how he spins it:

“I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are . . . "

Translation please? Maybe I'm just reading that jumbled collection of words wrong, but did he say that having a strategy right now is "getting ahead of ourselves?"

I mean, I get the concept of critical path elements in a project timeline. "Whoa, whoa, hold on there! Let's finish the sheetrock before we lay that carpeting, shall we?" But a strategy seems more like a parallel task than a serial one. You can't develop a strategy until . . . until what?

 

Maybe he just got caught blindsided. He just wasn't given the intelligence in time to make a decision. Yes, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that's what the official White House line is on that.

But . . . but . . . wait a minute. It's been in Obama's intelligence briefings for a year.

What? I have to pay attention to those? No fair! Gosh! Nobody told me being President involved paying attention!

So Obama decided to pay more attention this time an American got beheaded. (imagine Genie plunking a mortar board on his head. "He can be taught!") He gave a speech about . . . well, he didn't say what it was about.

He said we are going to degrade and destroy ISL (ISIS to those of us who don't ask for arugula on our cheeseburgers), or, I don't know, maybe shrink their sphere of influence and manage them . . . or . . . you know, something.

No, seriously, you have to ask yourself "Is he on some kind of medication?"

Then he tells everybody "We have your back." Oh, good, 'cause that's always worked out when we've counted on you in the past.

Now the Celebrity in Chief is going to give a speech to Congress outlining his "Strategy."

You know how this works. From now until the glorious day when that idiot leaves the White House, every time he uses the word "Strategy" he reminds us that he doesn't have one.

This is just like in the West Point speech. Obama had already acknowledged that he doesn't believe in American Exceptionalism. So all he did was remind us he doesn't when he said "I believe in American Exceptionalism with every fiber of my being."

Some of the sycophantic networks are picking up on this. They say Obama will be presenting his "plan" to Congress or outlining his "vision." They avoid using the word "strategy" which the Amateur in Chief has forever tainted.

You recognize the wording in the title. When Bill Clinton realized he was not relevant, he shook his little fists and stomped his little feet and actually said "I am too relevant!"

This is the – God bless her, I love her, but – Michelle Bachmann deal. If you have to say "I am a serious candidate for President!" you're not.

I could not believe that even some of President Obama's most die-hard groupies are finally realizing how stupid they look defending him. Maureen Dowd, who wanted to have his baby, finally abandoned him, and now even Ann Compton, who's going to have to have surgery to get her lips removed from his backside, was making fun of his stupidity on how to deal with ISIS.

Even Meet the Press, who you always expected would be defending Obama long after his own mother would've said "Yeah, he's an idiot," was saying how incompetent he looked on Foreign Policy.

But then some chick I've never heard of demonstrated that you're always going to have the stray zombie or two wandering out of the sheds when you think they're all taken care of. She spun it to the Meet the Press Moderator that "I think we have, in President Obama, a very deliberative decision maker . . . blah blah blah blah . . . who wants to take his time and get it right."

Uh . . . yeah, I guess that's one way you could characterize it . . . if you're a complete idiot!

I think we have, in President Obama, a very deliberative decision maker. He wants to take his time to get it right. And yet, I think what you heard Secretary Hagel reflecting is that growing sense of urgency about the nature of the threat. But the truth is you watch what the administration's doing, they are putting the pieces of a strategy together.

You have John Kerry going to the region to consult with partners and allies, start to bring them on board to a common approach. The have the intelligence mission now flying over Syria to try to understand the possibilities there to set up the possibilities of strikes. So you have the engagement in Iraq trying to form a government that could enable the Iraqi forces to be more effective against ISIS. So the pieces are starting to emerge. But I think, again, this is a president who wants to take his time and get it right.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

What a clueless idiot.

I've messed with the idea of "creating wealth" for about 35 years. What is "Wealth?"

This started with my realization that wealth isn't money—it isn't how much cash a person has in the back.

What does a politician mean when he promises to "create wealth?"

wealth of a nation isn't how much cash is in circulation.

Think about this. You have $150,000. So you buy a piece of property and build a house.

Now you don't have $150,000 any more. But you do have a house that's worth at least 150K. In addition, the construction workers and the suppliers of the cement and lumber and shingles, and the landscapers, and the carpet layers have the money that you spent on the house. And when they spend it—if they spend it on assets—are going to have assets and the money moves on.

That's building wealth. You took $150,000 and essentially turned it into $300,000.

That's if you put it into assets—something that has value after you spent the money on it.

Imagine the other case. Let's say some scumbag lawyer sues you. You give him money to go away. You don't have that money anymore. But you don't have an asset either. He's got the money and some of what he's going to spend it on will grow it, but that chunk of money skipped that step.

So you have growth elements in the economy that grow it, and parasitic elements that just take wealth away without giving an asset in return.

My apologies in advance to realtors—this is a gross oversimplification, but it's the very best way to make this point. Money that you spend on a house that doesn't go to the value of the house is parasitic. So you bought a $100,000 house, but you paid $106,000 for it because the realtor gets her cut. I know, I know, if it weren't for her you couldn't have gotten the house at all, but the point is that the money you gave her didn't increase the value of anything. Same thing with the financing. You know that over the term of the loan you're going to pay $300,000 for the house. The extra money didn't add to the value of the asset.

Again, oversimplification—the financing charges allow you to get the house in the first place and the people that got the money are going to buy things with it. But the point is still value. That is money that you spent that didn't go to making the house more valuable. At the end of that term it may be worth 300K, but if it is, why is it? Inflation.

And what causes inflation? Parasitic economic factors. Things that increase the price without increasing the value.

If you're looking for a point here, you're going to be disappointed. I just thought it was curious that when you build a house you double the money in the economy.

Here, let's throw in a point just 'cause I probably read somewhere that things you write should have one.

Government is to a large extent a parasitic economic factor. If I give my money to contractors and landscapers and brick layers I have an asset and they have money. If the government spreads it around, whoever gets it has money, but the other step is skipped—I'm out the money and have no asset to show for it.

A lot of simpletons resent people with money. That's why they are poor and the people they resent are not. They just don't get it. They themselves benefit much more by letting the rich guy spread the money around than by the government stealing it from the rich to give to them.

Now you understand it, too.