Real World Definitions of Political Terms

00_definitionsThe terms liberals and conservative have changed in meaning a number of times. Calvin Coolidge was a conservative Republican back in the 1920s. Franklin Roosevelt was a liberal.  Hubert Humphrey was a liberal as was George McGovern. Along the way there have been a number of conservatives in Congress.  Barry Goldwater was considered a conservative but never had much in the way of conservative initiatives. Ronald Reagan was the ultimate rhetorical conservative.  He did do a little in the area of deregulation but that is about it.  Politicians today primarily try to pass legislation that lobbyists write. Liberal and conservative are not meaningful in terms of things that get done or agenda that is attempted.  Images of being conservative or liberal attract votes.  Once in office the politician is free to operate in keeping with his own self interest.

So far the Democratic primary  is filled with meaningless mush. The liberal base loves it. In the Republican race, only Trump has adopted one conservative position. He wants start closing government agencies. If Trump is successful in getting that done, it will be the first conservative step by a Republican president since before the Great Depression. I won’t be standing on one leg waiting for it to happen.

The truth is a hard sell. Fantasy Free Economics gains readers one at a time. Major search engines simply do not list blogs which disagree with their world view. As long as folks share the link to this blog and others speaking out against the grain, the truth will at least trickle into the public consciousness.

Fantasy Free Economics recommends the following blogs.

Dandelion Salad Of Two Minds Liberty Blitzkrieg Mises Institute Straight Line Logic Paul Craig Roberts

This entry was posted in Daily Comments and tagged , on by .

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.