25 Comments

We in Vermont are the test market for the elitists. It's a small place with small population and just ripe for the collusion that goes on. I thought at one time many, many years ago this guy (DZ) was good and I had conversations with him. No more! Power corrupts absolutely!! He gave a caring appearance.... no more!!! Let's get him out.......

Expand full comment

Correct. But why haven't us indigenous people been able to have any effect on these interlopers? This is somewhat of a rhetorical question. I know the answer. I think you probably know the answer. Take Back Vermont. Vermont Stands Up. Grassroots Vermont. all. shut. down. methodically, along with a slew of others. can we do better than that?

Expand full comment

He is very earnest in his compassion -- I suspect Dave believes in his mission; that doesn't mean it isn't a miserable, obvious failure. Look at Kamala promising housing subsidies -- after destroying the housing market with inflation (that raised rates) and a massive influx of refugees (legal or no), the Democrats will now "rescue" Americans by borrowing yet more of THEIR money to squander on a handful of people while elderly retirees lose their homes for lack of affordability. That's what Dave does here -- impoverish people with taxes, then impverish them further with more "rescue" policies. We are imploding and he keeps fiddling like Nero. The rich liberals don't feel the pain and think they are virtuous by paying more in taxes and fuel costs -- dragging the low-income along in their idiotic wake.

Expand full comment

They are just implementing “you will own nothing and be happy” strategy. The Big Money is ready to buy everything. They are flush with trillions from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

Expand full comment

ZAP THE ZUCK

Expand full comment
Oct 1Edited

John great points! Also we already have an unrealized capital gain tax in Vermont- the property tax which keeps going up!!!

Expand full comment

If you read up on MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) you realize how foolish the prevailing academic theory for the role of government in the economy is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory#:~:text=MMT%20says%20that%20as%20long,by%20converting%20to%20local%20currency).

Basically MMT stipulates that:

Governments cannot default on loans that are denominated in its own currency because it can just print money (meaning that the government shouldn’t worry about tax revenue or bond issuance (debt - ie treasuries) to cover spending) and the purpose of taxes is to remove money from the money supply to reduce inflation, taxes do not correlate to gov spending. A key point of MMT is that fiscal deficits (ie gov debt) are inherently stimulative because they are basically the aggregate money that has been spent but not earned in the economy. (To me that must mean that they are proportionally inflationary- but not to the MMTers). MMT basically says that fiscal policy is universal and that any deficiencies in the market require further fiscal manipulation. (These parts of MMT are supported by the Fed, IMF, World Bank, WEF et al)

As you can see this implies the policy prescription from the uniparty that we see based on our market conditions. Prices are going up, so taxes should go up. If prices are too high that’s because you just aren’t poor enough. This fiscal intervention for too high unemployment is guess what? More government spending! So in a stagflationary environment like we have now the policy prescription is more taxes and more gov spending. Hooray totalitarianism!

How does this relate to Vermont, or any state government and the increased cost of living?

There is nothing more “progressive” than advocating a greater role of government in the distribution of resources within a governed territory. Notice that the government never takes responsibility for the production of anything of economic value, just the distribution of things already produced.

This of course is the rub. From whence does prosperity arise? How do we get an abundance of things that we want and need? From the utilization of limited resources in a more efficient manner. Who determines what resources and who determines efficiency? The market. That is people who sell things and people who pay for them. When a seller is getting more than his costs for a good or service that indicates to do more or make more of that. When prices are higher than a buyer thinks a good or service is worth that is an indication that the market it undersupplied and the seller should make more of them or the buyer should be less of them.

Any portion of the economy that MMT theory touches ensures that the government will be involved. In housing, for example, there are a plethora of government regulations (building codes - which are often written by building materials manufacturers to ensure consistent sales volumes of specific materials - eco review - architectural review boards - OSHA - liability insurance - workers comp) which drive up the cost of production. This ostensibly is so that the home is safe for habitation and to minimize potential negative repercussions from building. I suppose those are moral goals, but we must recognize that we are getting much less house for our money in this environment. We have to work more hours to afford the same bedroom so that a cornucopia of bureaucrats can tell us what is or is not OK to do on a property that we own and have to pay taxes for.

This is the main fault of MMT (or even Keynesian Economics): it assumes that government spending is a productive force in the economy. Just like the Central Bankers and the Fractional Reserve Bankers who think that monetary creation is stimulative. It is stimulative for stock prices, but it has negative productivity yields for the production of goods and services. Basically they have confused the map for the territory. While true that deficit spending (or quantitative easing) will proportionally increase the GDP it does not mean a corresponding rise in PPP (purchasing power parity) or ability to purchase more goods and services with less hours worked or less oz or gold spent. The problem with both gov spending (fiscal deficits) and quantitative easing (monetary creation) is that they are not market based allocators of capital. They have no ability to know what to spend on to get more PPP (a proxy for prosperity). QE just gets absorbed into real estate and equities without any thoughtful allocation of capital and government spending is arbitrary and capricious at best and negatively productive on average.

If you have ever seen “Parks and Recreation”, the mustachioed libertarian character of Ron Swanson knows that his most effective way to advocate for a smaller government is not through grassroots political organizing but by destroying the bureaucracy from within through not doing anything. It would be better if the government collected our taxes and just burned the cash behind the DMV in an annual dumpster fire than have a Building Department or a Health Department or a Department of State or a Department of Public Health. It would be better if we just paid the bureaucrats to stay home and go on vacation, we all would be more prosperous. We would have more restaurants and houses and furniture of good quality. We would have food that wouldn’t make us sick and doctors that would have their patients’ health in mind. It is not that we are ruled by a bunch of evil bureaucrats (although there certainly are some of those), it is that the system is designed to sap prosperity out of society every year.

Why then has our standard of living gone up significantly since the implementation of much of our regulated society starting in the Great Depression? Because of technology. Technological improvements should be deflationary fundamentally. A practice or product that allows a beef farmer to cut his expenses per beef in half means that he can sell his beef for half the price and will out compete any other producers in the area. Ditto for shoes or any other product. We know the miracle of the modern era is Wal Mart. How does stuff get so cheap? The answer is a complex web of technological improvements (logistics, supply chain, shipping, manufacturing, worldwide communication) and ethical failings (slavery and monopolistic pricing). My argument is that we have seen technological improvements in most ways that things are produced. Our houses are built cheaply (more pre-manufactured elements reducing labor) by cheap imported labor that often is being paid under the table and thus no workers comp.

Yet, we have houses that are more expensive as a portion of income than anytime post WWII. This is the tax of reduced productivity because of government intervention. Government spending isn’t just non-productive (nobody in the government makes anything of value), it is counter productive - it makes things more expensive while not producing anything.

The implications of this are disheartening: probably the greatest advancement in human prosperity ever to be recorded (post WWII) was robbed from much of the world’s population. The technological revolutions should have been deflationary, meaning we would be able to purchase a higher standard of living for less. This is true in TVs, cell phones, computers and clothing. Why? Because all of those things can be shipped to us from areas that do not have the regulations that we do. But in goods and services that are regulated by us we have incredible cost inflation (you can buy less house today than before WWII). More government = less prosperity. Less government = more prosperity.

Expand full comment

Yes!! Modern monetary policy is much like CRT, Queer Theory, and climate bunk -- all theoretical; all empowering and enriching; all divisive and destructive. Rumpelstiltskin can now make infinite wealth out of nothing. It's called stealth QE! This inflation is directly linked to money printing. Friedman: "inflation is always and everywhere a money supply problem." Monetary theorists should brush up on Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Hungary -- 80 million percent inflation will wake up the theorists overnight, and the soft liberals will be the first to panic in confusion: "What could possibly have gone wrong with running up my credit card to ten times my income? I'm so confused."

Expand full comment

Absolutely an awesome article, John! Thanks for putting EVERYTHING which shows how out of touch and elitist these Progs are. I think people will certainly agree with all you have mentioned here - lets hope the 'machines' will be honest this election and allow the people's voices to be heard.

Expand full comment

Our chances might be better if Belle ran things. At least she actually works rather than acts like a parasite upon the people.

Expand full comment

Yes but she chases the cows..... Needs a human handler. lol

Did your friends come up for foliage? It is peek now in most areas.....

Expand full comment

I asked Olivia about that at work. Her mother has cancer and took a turn for the worse so, no, sadly, she did not. Thanks so much for your very kind offer. I am hoping and literally praying for a good outcome and that the girls (3sisters) will get an opportunity to have the “Hallmark Autumn Vacation” of their dreams one day. They deserve it. Thank you again.

As for chasing cows, I’d still take Belle’s leadership over those who are quite literally evil at this point. It’s rather thick and obvious now in my opinion. Vote Belle! LOL!

Expand full comment

Mr. Klar, I told Olivia that you asked about her trip today. She was pleasantly surprised. It meant a lot that you would ask and both she and I think it says a lot about your character. If we could gather all the people of really good character, we could make some headway, I believe. Anyway, thank you.

Expand full comment

Thank you. Virtue-signaling elitists, building their big houses and complaining about climate change. Vermont contributes a ZERO amount to the carbon footprint. All this effort to destroy our way of life and it's affordability is such grotesque nonsense. Where is the factoring in of the needs of people? I admire your effort on your excellent articles.

Expand full comment

I'm grateful for the encouragement -- it often feels like no one is listening.... It is grotesque nonsense, but I fear most people will not look up from their consumptive recreations until the consequences are irreversible. Wendell Berry has written that "Our only hope is in our collapse." I truly hope he is wrong, but I fear it will take a drastic crisis to shake people from their illusions and complacency.

Expand full comment

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.” I’m afraid that about sums it up.

Expand full comment

If the progressive destruction of Vermont is allowed to continue, the state of Vermont will soon cease to be recognizable. Native Vermonters will be forced to relocate to states with more reasonable taxes, regulations, and less intrusive, suffocating social justice agendas. Multigenerational Vermonters such as myself love our home state!! But the high cost of living here, both in dollars and loss of individual freedoms, all to support elitists' policies of "moral superiority", will force hard choices to be made. It is no coincidence that Vermont has been identified as one of the least religious states.

https://time.com/4294/these-are-the-most-godless-states-in-america/

Expand full comment

Written in May of 2020. 4 years ago!! Not only have the progressives not learned anything, they have shown that they have their agenda and really just don't care.

Expand full comment

Cognitive dissonance. It is a cult.....

Expand full comment

I would agree, John, that cognitive dissonance is a thing among liberal populations -- the normies. But, like pbow, I believe it is much more than that with the ruling class. It is an agenda; and the agenda is driven from the top down from the UN/WEF/WHO through our academic and administrative classes who are bought and paid for and thoroughly indoctrinated over the last 2-3 generations.

Expand full comment

It is a new (Established) religion.....

Expand full comment

I was considering "relocation" lately. No reason I couldn't. Yet if I did, i would be yet another emmigrant, too poor of soul to take a stand and fight. Now, I am more considering the other alternative whence I dig my heels into the ground and fight. What else have I?

Expand full comment

It is a gamble to move to a new place that guarantees nothing. My current solution has been to find kindred souls in a church family. It has taken a few tries, but the one I am in now has become very meaningful. The financial drain of staying here? It remains to be seen if the citizens be awakened.

Expand full comment

What are you complaining about???? Vermont is turning into a worker's paradise! Marx would be very pleased. Pax

Expand full comment