and phat fish too
The government spenders tell us, for example, that if the national income is $1,500 billion then federal taxes of $360 billion a year would mean that only 24% of the national income is being transfered from private purposes to public purposes. This is to talk as if the country were the same unit of pooled resources as a huge corporation, and as if all that were involved were a mere bookkeeping transaction. The government spenders forget that they are taking money from A in order to pay B. Or rather, they know it very well; but while they dilate upon all the benefits of the process to B, and all the wonderful things he will have which he would not have had if the money had not been transferred to him, they forget the effects of the transaction on A. B is seen; A is forgotten. (p 37)and the consequence for A goes like this:
taxes inevitably affect the actions and incentives of those from whom they are takenSo, for the company who is taxed (heavily), all it's losses are 100% losses and all it's gains are 40/50/60/70% gains (depending on the rate of tax). So it is hard, if not impossible, for it to offset its losses in bad years in the good years and as a result it will adopt a strategy that will minimise the possibilities of any losses (not expanding so fast, not trying new things, not employing more people, improving machinery and factories happen with less vigour etc.):
The result in the long run is that consumers are prevented from getting better and cheaper products to the extent that they otherwise would, and that real wages are held down, compared with what they might have been.This effect is also seen for individuals and families:
People begin to ask themselves why they should work six, eight or nine months of the entire year for the government, and only six, four or three months for themselves and their families.In conclusion:
In brief, capital to provide new private jobs is first prevented from coming into existence, and the part that does come into existence is then discouraged from starting new enterprises. The government spenders create the very problem of unemployment that they profess to solve.Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt
in a free society it is the business of a child's parents to decide if their children's minds are to be opened to the possibility that God, rather than man, rules the universe. To educate them on the assumption that this isn't so is not neutral, but as partisan and committed as it is to teach them about the love of Christ as if it is (as I believe it to be ) a reality.And I have never seen anyone (in print) unmask universities with such candor:
In a society where university education is basically a scheme for disaffecting the young from the beliefs and customs of the home, many now fall into Godlessness during the extended adolescence provided by these subsidised anti-religious seminaries, whose main function is hedonistic pursuit with a bit of education attached at the back. People of my kidney should be making more of an effort to fight for the existence of overtly Christian universities and colleges.To follow Peter Hitchens' argument see here.
You know the first and greatest sin of the deception of television is that it simplifies; it diminishes great, complex ideas, trenches of time; whole careers become reduced to a single snapshot. At first I couldn't understand why Bob Zelnick was quite as euphoric as he was after the interviews, or why John Birt felt moved to strip naked and rush into the ocean to celebrate. But that was before I really understood the reductive power of the close-up, because David had succeeded on that final day, in getting for a fleeting moment what no investigative journalist, no state prosecutor, no judiciary committee or political enemy had managed to get; Richard Nixon's face swollen and ravaged by loneliness, self-loathing and defeat. The rest of the project and its failings would not only be forgotten, they would totally cease to exist.And it reminded me of one of those 'defining' books I read a few years ago and which I want to dust off again. Neil Postman's 'Amusing Ourselves to Death'.
Ruth 1:22: So Naomi returned and with her Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the land of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest.
Ruth begins tragically. Elimelech flees from famine in Bethlehem by taking his wife and sons to Moab, where death assaults them. First Elimelech dies, and Naomi is left with her two sons. Then her sons die, and she is left with only her daughters-in-law.
But the movement of the chapter is not tragic. It begins in famine, but ends in harvest, and the central turning point of the story is verse 6, where Yahweh “visited His people in giving them food.” Because of Yahweh’s visitation, Bethlehem has again become what its name suggests, a “house of bread.”
Yahweh’s visitation brings more than a harvest of barley. At the same time Israel is beginning to reap the barley, Yahweh is beginning to reap in the Moabites – the Moabites who descend from the incestuous eldest daughter of lot, the Moabites who seduced Israel as they came out of Egypt – those Moabites are being gathered in. Because Yahweh has visited His people, they become a house of bread, a land of milk and honey, and the nations begin to stream in.
Ruth 1 is redemptive history in miniature, depicting the movement from wrath to grace, from famine to feast. It all turns on the great visitation that occurred in Bethlehem, in the incarnation. Ruth 1 is the gospel in miniature: In the midst of the divided nations of the world, He has visited His people in gathering the Gentiles into His house. In the midst of the famine of this world, Yahweh has visited His people in by giving His people living bread from heaven.
Sermons, history shows, can be among the most revolutionary forms of human speech. From John Calvin to Billy Graham, preaching has had the power to topple princes, to set nation against nation, to inspire campaigners to change the world and impel people to begin life anew.
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them mankind in the day they were created. (Genesis 5:2)'In Hebrew, the italicized word translated mankind is Adam. In other words, God created Adam and his wife male and female, He blessed them, and called them Adam. She was, from the beginning, a covenantal partaker in the name of her husband. God does not call her Adam on her own, He calls her Adam with him.' (p15)
Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, the people of Chemosh (Numbers 21:29; Jeremiah 48:46). The sacrifice of children as a burnt-offering was part of his worship (2 Kings 3:27). Solomon erected a high place for Chemosh in Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:7), but Josiah destroyed this (2 Kings 23:13).
Ruth begins with death – the death of the land in famine, the death of exile, the death of Elimelech, the death of Naomi’s sons, the death of Naomi’s future. Naomi goes out full, and comes back empty. Ruth 1 is a perfect tragic story, a story of endings and emptyings.
But it is chapter 1, and the author wants us to realize that this series of deaths is not an end. The end of chapter 1 is a beginning, as Naomi and Ruth return to Bethlehem “at the beginning of the barley harvest” (v. 22). The author makes his point with a touch so light as to be nearly imperceptible, but the import of that “beginning” is as weighty as anything in Scripture.
“In the beginning” and “once upon a time” make rational sense as the beginning of a story. But recognizing a beginning on the other side of an end is an act of faith.