Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite columnists, for several reasons, but mostly because he sees an orange, he calls it an orange. You can look at an orange and nuance your way around describing it, but in the end isn’t it simple enough to just call it an orange? Why? Because an orange is an orange. The precedent has already been set, and it’s a fairly mundane and universally known object. Failing any evidence to the contrary emerging it will remain an orange. Unless you had to describe it to an extra-terrestrial in which case it would also be simple. Hand it to them and say “orange”. Although it’s ridiculous to think this would be the topic of discussion should you come face to face with an ET.

There’s my orange theory in a nutshell. Later I’ll bore you to tears with the “Hubble bubble” theory.

My point? I don’t like people pissing on my shoes and telling me it’s rain.

Back to Dr. Sowell. Dr. Sowell is an economist. I like to read what economists have to say because math, economics and all things fiscal are not my forte. The problem with reading economists is that they are economists and express themselves as such. They are often pedantic and undecipherable to the lay person with little math skills such as myself. The reason Dr. Sowell is my go-to guy is because he’ll look at an orange and call it an orange. I read his column faithfully and can’t wait to start his new book. He’s not the only one I read, just my favorite. Here’s his latest sample (actually, his random thoughts columns remain my favorites):

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/13/magic_numbers_in_politics

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/14/magic_numbers_in_politics_part_ii

They have led me to this huge rant with which I’m about to punish anyone bored enough to read it.

I’ve heard the myriad of talking heads, people I know and people on television want to explain away the reason our economy (and the world’s economy) blew up. Most of them like to point to that evil genius (who also happens to be an idiot, according to them) President George W. Bush and the republicans. Then there are those who point to those bleeding heart liberal democrats and their social policies. None of them get a pass in my book, by the way. However, at some point, the problem had a Genesis.

Not being an economist, I got to reading and following the money trail. Discussing government regulatory policies and free markets can get a little complex and oversimplifying it with descriptions of oranges may well be irrelevant. But human nature is much easier to explain. Human nature is my forte.

Human nature is governed for the most part by self-interest and ego. Whether you’re a politician or a businessman you really can’t get away from this. It’s probably splitting hairs stating which one is governed more by self-interest and ego, the politician or the businessman. The difference between a businessman and a politician is that a businessman’s self-interest and ego will usually serve humankind by proxy in a positive manner, regardless of the altruistic nature of the businessman. In a competitive market he will have to serve the consumer and compete with others who may make the product cheaper, better etc.

It’s why professional badminton players do not get millions of dollars to play. To some, badminton may be a better sport than football. To most it is not. Clearly it’s safer. If it attracted more spectators it would in turn attract more players, more teams, more badminton stadiums, etc. Tom Brady may then have been the greatest badminton player that ever lived instead of one of the greatest football players.

It’s also why I can communicate via this media. Bill Gates ego and self-interest has served me the consumer, Microsoft’s employees and its stockholders. It has fed a myriad of other industries by proxy. It has created millions of jobs directly or indirectly. He has to continue to serve me because the very second someone else does it better, Bill Gates loses. The consumer does not, nor do stockholders or employees. They may initially, but in the long run they can also find other options in a competitive market.

A lot of people bandy about the term “greedy corporations” (as in “greedy automaker CEO’s”, “greedy oil company barons” and the most recent “greedy insurance companies”). Politicians attempting to legislate love throwing those terms around. But what the hell is that exactly? Corporations, as such, are neither greedy nor altruistic. They are intangible legal arrangements created by people for the purpose of conducting commerce.

So are people greedy? You betcha. That in itself doesn’t mean that owners of corporations, big or small, are greedy. Funny how people like to point their fingers at CEO’s of major corporations as evil and greedy, but have no problem with an NFL quarterback demanding hundreds of millions of dollars to play a game. Which one of those two create jobs and wealth? Regardless of motive, the CEO’s, entrepreneurs and small businessmen create jobs and wealth. That is also an indisputable fact. Oh and guess who else are the owners of “greedy corporations”. That’s right, every single person who owns stock or contribute to a retirement plan.

The same cannot be said of the politician. Politicians do not create private industry jobs. They create government jobs which have never stimulated the economy or created wealth. They take money from the pockets of hard workers to give to others who may not be as industrious or talented. They make it sound like they have altruistic motives for this, but for the most part their motives are driven by the same machine as the businessman. Self-interest and ego. However, the self-interest and ego of a politician serve only the politician. The problem is the politicians actions normally will leave me with little or no alternate choices and when the politician has legislative pens and an enforcing arm on his side, they can wreak havoc on the rest of us.

That is the Genesis of the problem. If you haven’t been following where I’ve been leading you, I’ll spell it out for you. Politicians are the root of our problem.

Few disagree with the fact that the housing market was the catalyst that blew up our financial system. What is in dispute is who wore the black hat. Politicians (mostly the Democrats) are pointing their fingers at that evil Wall Street and those evil Bankers! Evil greedy bastards! They say they were not “regulated” enough or watched carefully enough. That their “greedy” tendencies are the root of all evil. That there are a few Gordon Geko’s on Wall street is clearly indisputable, but while they’re making money for your 401k you don’t notice them nor will you render a judgment one way or the other. Your own outrage is allayed by your“greedy” tendencies when you're making.

Other politicians (mostly the Republicans) are pointing their fingers at Democrats and blaming their social engineering policies and pandering to “the poor” by giving out entitlements for the root of this problem.

They’re both right. And wrong.

As there’s a paucity of space, here are three things for you to read and research: The Community Reinvestment Act, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980), the Depository Institutions Act (1982), and the Glass-Steagall Act (and its repeal in 1999). What do these things have in common? You guessed it. They were implemented and/or repealed by whom? Politicians. Both Democrats and Republicans. All of these have led at one time or another to often catastrophic consequences. The CRA and GSA repeal are some of the factors that have led to where we are today. That people took advantage of the politician’s actions and played the system should come as no surprise to anyone. Human nature. Self-interest.

Go out in the middle of a crowded city sidewalk, take a wad of money, throw it in the air and see who among the people walking don’t make a grab for a stray dollar or two. Human nature. Self interest. No consequences there. No sacrifice either. That’s the government, except they don’t take their own money to throw out there. They take my money.

What is never talked about in the saga of Robin Hood (and all other similar stories) is what the people he robbed did to obtain their goods and riches. They may have worked very hard, contributed to charity and earned every precious shiny stone. But in the minds of the stories authors, they are painted with a wide brush as greedy, evil and deserving of being robbed. The poor (to include Robin Hood) are noble, industrious and deserving of receiving the robbed goods. Who makes that call? Robin Hood? What qualifies him? And at what point does he then become “the evil greedy corporation”?

I bet you were thinking that I was going to lead to the whole “it’s Carter’s fault, it’s Clinton’s fault, it’s HW’s fault, it’s W’s fault, it’s Pelosi’s fault, it’s Reid’s fault, it’s Gingrich’s fault!” Well you are wrong. It’s our fault for allowing them to get that powerful.

I’ve been reading of late how this magnificent country got its start on very shaky legs. It was the intention of the vast majority of the founders that the gubmint, particularly the central federal government, never be allowed to become as powerful as it has become. Precisely because of all the reasons I’ve explained. In our entire history, what has emerged as a crystal clear fact, is that we were at our most prosperous and peaceful when the government was reigned in and had very little power over us as individuals and states. Once we began turning to the government for our safety, prosperity and guarantor’s of outcome, not opportunity, we have screwed the pooch to the point where it gave birth to whole litters of inefficient, stifling, controlling and corrupt little puppies. What’s worse is, the dogs are also running the kennel and the offspring of those particular puppies will not get any better.