Bottom of the Bottomless Debt

I love John Prine.  If you never heard of him, you have missed one of the best songwriters ever.  His ability to turn life’s joys, sorrows, and ironies into song is awe-inspiring.  People to whom I introduce his music invariably say, “That’s exactly how I have felt!”

Now I don’t know whether John would agree with what I am about to say, so let me extend my apologies just in case.  A song of his came to mind early this morning as I was reading about our deficit.  The song is entitled Bottom of the Bottomless Lake and it tells a fabulous tongue-in-cheek tale of a family who takes off on a drive to see Uncle Jake.  As they reach the river, the brakes on the car fail and the ferry is not there so they fall…you guessed it…into the Bottomless Lake.

We are falling down, down to the bottom
Of hole in the ground, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em
I’m so scared I can hardly breathe
I may never see my sweetheart again

We too are falling, and some people think there is no bottom to the deficit–we will just keep falling.  Of course, we all know that there is no such thing as a bottomless lake or a bottomless pit or a bottomless plumber (e-mail me when that one’s funny).  We eventually hit bottom, and the longer the drop, the harder the stop.  Right now the debt is over $12 trillion dollars.  It increases at $3.9 billion per day.  By the time we add unfunded liabilities to the picture, according to some, we can never pay it off.  The math does not work.

The choices are stark.  We can rein in a pathological government by refusing to elect people who spend like Imelda Marcos on speed or we can wait for the car to “Hit the bottom of the Bottomless Lake.”  When it does, we will wish it was as funny as Prine’s song.

______________

Terry checked his sons’ science text books.  There was a lot about global warming, but no mention of the Bottomless Lake.

The Cognitively-Challenged Vampire

My wife, Cindy, watches vampire movies.  Though not a fan myself, I have managed to absorb the story line running through most of them as I sit on the couch pretending to do something else.  First, of course, there are the vampires.  They survive in a state of immortal limbo by drinking the blood of humans.   If they drink too much, and they always do, they kill the host.  That necessitates finding other hosts.  If they take too many, the humans will fight back.  It’s not easy being a vampire.

Modern vampire movies have an additional theme.  There is always a group of people who cooperate with the vampires.  They wear nice suits and occupy places of power in government and business.  The vampires need the confederates to be able to escape detection and their confederates need them to be wealthy and powerful.  Nice arrangement.

Though I doubt the makers of such movies intend this, I cannot help but notice how much they parallel our current political and economic climate.  In order for his agenda to work, Obama must simultaneously suck blood from the productive and keep them alive.  The crony capitalists are safe– they play by his rules, pretending to be offended while cutting sweet deals for themselves and covering for the vampires, er, politicians.

Small businesspeople, especially entrepreneurs, are a whole different matter.  These hard-working folks don’t have the time or the influence to snuggle up to Washington.  Thus they are exposed to the ravenous denizens of the netherworld.  Lacking the mock innocence of the suits, they will take a more straightforward and honest tack.  Somebody needs to tell the vampires that their blood supply is in danger.

A fellow blogger (Coyote Blog) has posted a superb explanation of why small businesses cannot afford to grow bigger and hire more people.  I suggest you read it if you want to know what small business owners face in the current political climate.  Investing in any long-term project includes a gamble that government will not change the rules and destroy any already razor-thin margins.  And herein lies the problem.

Since roughly 1980, they have become the real drivers of wealth creation.  We have shifted from a Fortune 500 economy to a small business economy.  Small businesses represent the vast majority of net job creation and innovation.  Since they do not dress quite as well and cannot afford lobbyists, they are easy prey for Obama and the Democrats.  Until now.

As my fellow blogger notes, entrepreneurs make decisions today that have ramifications far into the future.  If the future is highly uncertain, they don’t invest.  End of story.  Obama knows, as have all politicians and tyrants since the dawn of politics, that someone has to create all the wealth that he wants to confiscate. You can be sure they will not be producing any more blood if at anytime the government can slap on health care, cap-and-trade, and whatever else they dream up in their lairs waiting for nightfall.  The Head Vampire has screwed up.

We can at least give a smart vampire some credit for being smooth and cunning.  Clumsy, dumb vampires just don’t work.  Obama’s hubris caused him to squander most of his charm within his first year in office.  Cunning is beginning to look more like clueless.  As in the movies, the real victims are about to rise up and drag the bloodsuckers into daylight.  Hopefully they won’t cut my part, small as it is.

__________

Terry’s wife Cindy has more ways of killing a vampire than Georgia has Waffle Houses.  If the zombies ever attack she is also your go-to gal.  Terry doesn’t know much about killing vampires and wonders why zombies always lean to one side.

Obama Gets One Right

I was teaching MBAs when the President made his State of the Union speech.  Frankly, I find SOUs from any President tiresome and insulting.  From the summaries I have read, this one appears to have been no different–a litany of hare-brained ways in which government is going to fix everything.

One item did catch my attention, though, and it is worth noting that I have finally found something on which I can agree with the President.  Get rid of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

First, let me express my unreserved admiration for the military.  We send these people to do the hardest job any of us can imagine–putting their lives at risk for a cause.  To anyone out there reading who has served, is serving, or will serve, you have my support.  Let me also apologize for the nation collectively for sometimes sending you to do idiotic missions with no moral justification.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone else’s sexuality is a cause for concern for anyone, anywhere, anytime.  Not once have I ever felt threatened by the presence of a gay person.  I have an excellent memory, and I don’t seem to recall gay groups ever banding together to force me to be gay.  I don’t recall gay friends ever being anything but, well, friends.

To me, it is insulting to think that people in the military cannot cope with their comrades’ openly declaring their sexuality.  My guess is that it would be met with a gigantic “ho-hum” and they would go on to deliver the outstanding service they always deliver.  Those who object on religious grounds will hopefully find that there are many ways to interpret a religious text.  Admonitions against private acts like consensual sex (straight, gay, solo, or otherwise) are misguided and mean-spirited.

In short, get over it.  Let gays serve openly.  Let the world know that the freedom we fight for includes the freedom to express your sexuality anywhere, anytime.  That person shoulder to shoulder with you on the battlefield is a soldier first; what he/she does off the battlefield is a distant second.

_____________

Terry hates bigotry.  He thinks that people who rail against gays, other races, and the opposite sex need more hobbies.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Corporation?

Many of my friends are upset that the Supreme Court has stood up for freedom of speech for corporations.  Their argument seems to be that letting corporations influence legislators freely will lead to bad outcomes.  The yelling “fire” in a crowded theater example comes up frequently.  Free speech, so the example goes, cannot include everything.

I think that is a red herring myself, as such an act has no real content and can only be construed as the intent to do immediate harm.  As much as I side with the Supremes on their decision, however, I have to say that I understand my friends’ concerns.  Here’s why.

One would think that businesses would be staunch supporters of laissez-faire capitalism.  Restricted markets mean a straitjacket on business, unless you are on the right side of the lawmakers. Herein lies the problem.  Businesses, at least those large enough to contribute significantly to political campaigns, routinely seek favors to make their competitive lives easier.  Whether it is insurance companies wanting state-to-state restrictions or Al Gore advocating for the “green” technologies that will make him a fabulously wealthy venture capitalist, those who have influence use it, usually at our expense.

The best solution, unfortunately, is also the least likely to occur in my lifetime.  I favor a radical separation of the economy and the state whereby the state is restricted to the enforcement of contracts, and of course, material harm to others such as legitimate pollution.  Being put out of business by competitors does not count, no matter how cute and wholesome you are.  Since that would require our legislators to give up the vast majority of their influence, I am not holding my breath.

So where does that leave us?  Perhaps better than my friends think.  Let any person or entity say what they please.  For that matter, let them contribute what they please.  Require them to disclose immediately, on the Internet for all to see, what those contributions were.  We voters are responsible for sorting the wheat from the chaff.  If we vote for people who will confiscate our tax money in order to scratch the backs of their favorite corporations, we deserve what we get.

____________

Terry wishes he had a big corporation.  He would require people to buy his stuff whether they wanted it or not.  Maybe electric doughnuts or something.

Is a Corporation a Person?

Who cares?

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for free speech supporters.  There has never been any sane rationale for limiting political speech in such a way.  Even if corporations are not “citizens,” as Justice Stevens opined in the dissent, the First Amendment bars Congress from making any law abridging freedom of the press.  Claiming that corporations are not citizens is a nonsensical diversion.  Disallowing the speech of an entity that is regulated as an entity is evil.

So why are some people so upset?  Best I can figure, they are afraid of corporations.  You know, those enormous capitalist monstrosities that make more money in a day than most people can write out on a piece of paper.  If you are among that number, let me show you why corporations are the least of your worries.

First, corporations on the whole do vastly more good than harm.  For every one that pollutes (real pollution, not the media-hype kind) there are 10,000 that provide goods for a tiny fraction of the average person’s annual income.  We live better on the whole than a king of a few hundred years ago could have imagined.

Second, corporations get big because we buy things from them–voluntarily.  WalMart, a favorite whipping boy of the disenchanted left, is big because they do what they do better than anyone else.  When Sam Walton started, it was K-Mart that ruled.  Only K-Mart thought small towns were not good locations.  When the denizens of Main Street America found they could buy underwear and toothbrushes cheaper at Wally World, they rewarded Sam Walton with billions.  Mr. Sam is a hero, not a villain.  He earned every penny.

But surely there is something wrong here.  Is it not true that corporation do sleazy things?  Don’t they tempt us into buying things we don’t really need, offer us credit cards that get us into trouble, and talk kids into eating junk?  Baloney.  We buy snowmobiles when we should buy gold.  We fail to plan our debt well.  And we are the ones who are responsible for teaching our kids what to eat.  Blaming corporations for our problems is almost always just one more way to evade self-responsibility.

For all my unreserved support of business honestly done, there is one perfectly good reason to loathe a corporation.  When business entities team with government to squelch competition or receive subsidies, grab your wallet.  In the end, you will pay through higher prices due to lack of competition or higher taxes.

And now for the real solution to the “problem” of corporations.  They need not exist at all, at least not in the form we usually think of them.  When individuals pool their money to capitalize a business, the government’s role should extend only to the enforcement of whatever contracts are drawn up among those individuals.  From the point at which this entity is formed, other individuals or other businesses may choose whether or not to conduct business with that entity.  You don’t like the way it keeps books?  Don’t invest.  You don’t like what it sells?  Don’t buy it.  You are materially harmed by something it does?  Sue.  And don’t try to tell me you can’t win.  The enormous advantage current corporations have is mostly due to their bedmates in office.  Remove government’s ability to game the system and you enable citizens and businesses to hash out their respective boundaries fairly.  No one will get what he/she wants every time, but it sure as hell beats having influence swayed by a bribe.

The few corporations that truly are a menace today are so because the state helps them get that way.  If you and I make business mistakes, we go broke and have to start over.  If GM screws up, it takes money from us to keep offering things no one wants.  Remove that embarrassing feature of today’s economy and we can answer the question of a corporation’s personhood with a resounding, “Who cares?”

__________

Terry not only supports business–he thinks you should have one.  Read his book Empty Nest Egg: Why You Must Start Your Own Business NOW to learn why.

I, Health Care

Have you ever wondered why so many wonderful things that enhance and enrich our lives exist?  Like pencils?

In his classic essay, I, Pencil, Leonard Read explains the extraordinarily complex processes that bring wood, graphite, resin, and a host of other materials and know-how together to form that lowly writing instrument that all of us use at one time or another.  There is not a single person on Earth who can make one, or even a small part of one.  How then, is a pencil made?

I cannot do service to this argument.  Read has done so most eloquently, and I leave it to you to read the essay.  Do it now.  I’ll wait.

________

Back?  I hope you did not rush.  Let the whole idea sink in, for if you understand it, you can grasp why our country is hurtling toward a precipice and what we can do about it.  A government can no more direct even a small part of an economy than one person can master all that is required to make a pencil.  Thousands upon thousands of free people act with no director at all and the result is a pencil, or a car, or medical treatment. Thousands upon thousands of politicians and bureaucrats act and the result is a disaster.

Every bit of knowledge, every ounce of skill, and every instrument a doctor uses is the result of so many freely coordinated activities that it boggles the mind.  The engineer designs a scalpel, not knowing on whom it will be used.  The chemist works on a medicine for no one in particular.  The receptionist cares not about the identity of the parade of patients coming through the clinic.  Each plies his/her trade in exchange for money, which in turn is used to buy a thousand other things, like pencils.  The vast majority of the people who contribute will never see a patient.

In place of this wonderfully unorchestrated symphony, our government would like to put legions of tone-deaf kazoo players.  They want a system where they control how these things are coordinated, they determine how much doctors are paid, and they dictate how patients are to be treated.  No sane group of people would even entertain the notion that this kind of system will bring those thousands of people and resources together as efficiently as a free market.  But then, we are talking about government.

The solution?  Get government out of the health care business.  Not everyone has a pencil handy when needed, but through the magic of the free market, even the poorest among us can get one with reasonable effort.  It would be the same with doctors if the government were to leave well enough alone.  Those who cannot afford one would soon find themselves the recipients of private charity.  This because there would be plenty of doctors with plenty of resources provided by the infinite wisdom of a mechanism beyond our ability to replicate.  If the government starts providing pencils, we well be scratching in the dirt.  If they start providing health care, we’ll soon be pushing up dirt.

______________

Terry is not usually this blunt, but he loves humanity and hates tyrants.  Please forgive him if the health care debate has made him a little testy.

Who Loves Ya?

Love.

Is there any word in the English language more misunderstood?  Well, maybe “antidisestablishmentarianism,” but who uses that one anymore?  Love–deep and abiding regard for another human being–is held by many to be the pinnacle of human character.  One who loves is somehow more human than one who cannot.  Or will not.

Yet for all its apparent nobility, the emotion of love is sorely misunderstood.  We are often told by well-meaning people that we are to love everyone, even people who talk during the movie.  I confess that I have not reached that lofty height.  Truth is, I don’t plan to.

To me, love is reserved for those people whose deepest values I share.  That does not mean they have to agree with me on everything or that they necessarily have all the same interests that I do.  They must, however, have the same basic viewpoint on what it means to live a good life and what things are truly worthy of achievement.

What about everybody else?  Sure, I have a basic sense of regard for most any human being, at least those who have not demonstrated through inexcusable behavior that they are unworthy of the title.  Killing others in the name of religion or some hare-brained ideology comes to mind.  For me, that means treating everyone with some basic level of dignity.

The problem arises when we hold too loose a definition of love.  One would act to the benefit of a lover or a family member (at least those we love) without a second thought even in cases of great inconvenience or pain.  I would give up a night doing something I love for my wife or kids–probably not for the guy who wouldn’t shut up during Star Trek.  To say that we must love everyone implies that each are worthy of equal treatment.

And what does this have to do with liberty?  First, liberty implies that you are free to love whom you want and the same for me.  Second, it provides a framework for us to benefit from one another even when we don’t love each other.  You and I can trade value for value without having an affair.  Thank heaven for that–nothing personal.  I’m sure you feel the same way.

True laissez-faire capitalism means not being forced to provide anything for anyone.  Participants in such an economic system can benefit mutually without loving each other–without even knowing each other.  Systems that force individuals to provide for others invariably gravitate toward tyranny.  The reason is clear: Soon everyone begins to concentrate on getting rather than giving.  A true capitalist who can trade with those he/she chooses knows that creating value is the name of the game.  A socialist hopes someone will be forced to provide for him.

Ah, but were we all just to love one another!  You bet.  Please have at it.  As long as you voluntarily provide for others seeking nothing in return, you are welcome to do so.  I don’t have the right to choose your beneficiaries and you don’t have the right to choose mine.  Capitalism does not, despite popular misrepresentations, preclude us from giving freely to others.  Spread the love, just don’t force your list on me.

___________

Terry writes this blog frequently.  He also misses Mystery Science Theater 3000.  Whatever happened to that show?

Stossel on Rand

It is rare that I get to watch a truly good TV program.  John Stossel’s show on Atlas Shrugged last night was a welcome exception.  It was civil, informative, and forthright.  Good on you, John.

I find that few people are neutral about Ayn Rand.  It seems that she evokes strong reactions in both followers and detractors.  I was dubious that any show could cover this topic satisfactorily because of that.  Detractors are often rabid with contempt for her philosophy and more than a few supporters are little better than ill-mannered parrots.  Stossel’s guests, including those opposed to Rand, were articulate and polite.

What does Rand stand for and why does it matter?  As one of the guests put it, she stands primarily for reason.  In her philosophy, called Objectivism, she advocates reason as the proper guide for human action.  Mysticism is scorned along with other claims to knowledge through non-rational means.  People who fail to use reason as the foundation of their lives are not living a life proper to human beings.

Rand also claims that the attribute of rationality is foundational to human survival and prosperity.  When the human mind is chained by a tyrannical government or thugs, man’s only means of bettering his life is taken away.  It follows from this premise that individuals should be free to act as they see fit, short of initiating violence against others.  Individuals are not obligated to provide for others, though they may rationally choose to do so voluntarily.

It is this part of Rand’s philosophy that creates angst among both liberals and conservatives.  Liberals tend to believe that government adds to the common good not only by preventing the initiation of violence (through its police force and court system) and providing national security (through the military), but also through social engineering.  In this view, government should ensure certain social and economic outcomes for its citizens.  The coercive redistribution of wealth is justified thus.

Conservatives often claim to oppose big government, but they rarely do so in practice.  The same companies that contribute to their campaigns are the ones that get subsidies and preferential regulatory treatment.  They are not opposed to intrusive government as long as it intrudes in the right way–to their benefit.  Welfare for citizens is abhorrent, but welfare for their favorite companies is OK.

These are not just academic questions.  Should government be involved in such matters?  My answer is an emphatic “no.”  The first and foremost reason is that individual economic liberty is an inextricable part of what it means to be human.  Imagine a person whose every material need is met but who is not free to choose his/her day-to-day activities.  Would that person be “human?”  I think not.  Freedom is not just an instrumental value–one we hold dear because it brings us other values.  It is what Milton Rokeach would call a “terminal” value.  We seeks it because it has value in itself.

Happily, by honoring individual liberty, we also promote the well-being of others.  Individuals can barely survive, much less prosper, unless they cooperate with others.  When they are allowed to enhance each others’ lives through voluntary trade, they will tend to act in ways that promote mutual benefit.  Those that lie and cheat will soon find themselves without trading partners.  The gigantic frauds that have come to dominate business news would be nearly impossible to pull off under true capitalism.  It is the collusion between government and business that creates the dark corners in which cockroaches hide.

All this matters because of something one of Stossel’s guests said last night.  We are on the road to becoming a third world nation.  At a time when we should be embracing the values embodied in Atlas Shrugged, we are doing precisely the opposite.  Government is taking over more and more of the economy, lording more and more over our daily decisions, and spending more and more money by the hour.  Look at the numbers sometime–it cannot last.  One day, perhaps sooner than we think, all the supposed good we did by controlling others will come back to haunt us.  When all the creators of value refuse to work under those terms, when the Barney Franks and the Nancy Pelosis of this world no longer have a cookie jar in which to grub for goodies, we will have reached the final chapter.

Sound scary?  You bet it is.  There is a solution.  If you value liberty and you want your children to live at least as well as you have, start learning more about limited government philosophy.  Start with The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  Even if you do not agree in whole, at least seek to understand why Rand’s predictions were so eerily accurate.  Then, if the light comes on for you, join me in arguing for a radical change in our country’s direction.  Welcome aboard.

Hon, Did You Get Enough Batteries?

Did you ever get one of those toys on Christmas morning that was so cool you just could not wait to play with it? And play you did. If your parents were smart, they bought a truckload of batteries well before that glorious day, but you used them all up by 3:15 and the stores were closed. Another funny thing. Did you ever notice that the first set of batteries always lasts the longest? As a toy gets a little worn and banged up, it requires more energy. And more. And more. And more.

Merry Christmas, America. It looks like you are going to get a cool toy this year.

As I write on this wintry Illinois morning, Congress is about to enact the largest expansion of government since the Great Society. I thought Democrats would save themselves and us by being unable to agree or by (egad!) noticing that the American people like this whole thing less by the hour. I thought Republicans…well, frankly I can’t figure out what they are thinking. Libertarians, those few who hold office, are either writhing on the sidewalk in agony or laughing their limited-government behinds off. I vacillate between those two.

In case you have not been following the news, a flurry of, ahem, “deals” have been cut to make this thing work. Not surprisingly, when individual Senators realized they each could hold the bill hostage, they used their leverage like angry butchers waving a cleaver. The result is some tasty gifts for states whose Senators threatened to hold it hostage. Of course, these are only the ones we read about. If anyone in America has actually finished reading the whole bill, he/she is sure to find money allocated for god-knows-what.

Speaking of which, I hardly know where to begin in criticizing this monstrosity. I certainly have not read it in full. Neither have you, and don’t try to tell me you have. So rather than give you a point-by-point analysis, let me pose a few questions that should keep all of us busy for all while whether we support the bill or not.

• What obligations were made to individual states in order to secure passage? We know Nebraska and Louisiana got sweet deals. What about the rest?

• What will the bill do to taxes? Correct me if this came from The Onion and I fell for it, but…tanning salons? Yes, folks, tanning in salons will be taxed. Don’t ask me whether tanners or tannees get taxed. It was embarrassing enough to write this much about it.

• When do benefits kick in? Hint: Not soon.

• When do taxes to support the program kick in? Hint: Much sooner.

• Put together the previous two questions and we get the mother of all questions: How will we pay for all this? This one deserves separate treatment.

If you support this bill, you may do so for noble reasons–you hate to see people unable to afford medical treatment. I do too. If you think this bill will accomplish that end, you are sadly mistaken. Perhaps I am being unfair. Yes, it will help someone, somewhere get medical treatment. In fact, I expect to see all kinds of stories in the popular press about the miracles wrought by Obama’s bold and brave leap forward. All the while something sinister will be happening. Our unfunded obligations will grow and grow and grow. We will keep going to the store to buy new batteries until there are no more. All the neighborhood kids will come by to play. The more worn the system gets, the more batteries it will require, until we are all sitting staring forlornly at the now-motionless creation that had given us so much joy only a few hours before.

In the end, we will find that what we wanted out of the goodness of our hearts has collided with the reality of what we know in our heads. This health care bill cannot work. Within a few short years, it will be bankrupt along with Social Security and Medicare. We will wish we had substituted the wisdom of planning for a lifetime for the short-lived joy of a single morning.

Stossel on Global Warming

(Please forgive today’s formatting issues.  I am not sure why the formatting gods have it in for me this morning.)

I watched John Stossel’s new show last night.  His chosen topic was global warming.  Missing was the ridiculous shouting that characterizes most “topic” shows.  Stossel, to his credit, held a civil and well-managed forum in which opposing viewpoints were treated with dignity.

I like Stossel for any number of reasons.  First and foremost, he is a skeptic–not just of global warming hysteria, but of hysteria in general.  This trait is sorely lacking in the media these days and one wonders if the disease has been transmitted to the general populace.

The history of manufactured crises and ill-founded scares reads like a bad science-fiction novel.  From the 19th century’s  dire prediction of the world running out of whale oil to the Y2K bug, we human beings have an inexplicable fascination with our collective demise.  If it’s not something in the air, it’s something in the water or something lurking in the dark of outer space waiting to clobber us in our sleep.

Like a child living in constant fear of an unpredictable and authoritarian parent, doomsdayers usually think it is something we humans did.  Underneath the unfounded hysteria lies a fundamental fear that our capacity for progress is somehow wrong and that we should be punished for doing so many “unnatural” things to better our lives.  Nature knows best, and she is a vindictive soul.  Anything we do to alter it is bad and will be punished.

The facts of global warming are open to question, but let’s assume for a moment that the alarmists are correct–that the Earth is warming, that this is a bad thing, and that we can do something about it.  Stossel and his guests zeroed in on what I believe to be the central problem in the global warming circus.  Even under the worst scenarios offered up by alarmists, the consequences are far less devastating than the cures.

Global warming advocates target fossil-based fuels.  In reality, though, it is neither practical nor desirable to move away from fossil fuels.  Though this may change in the future, no substitute for decayed dinosaurs is economically viable.  Wind, solar, and even nuclear power are more heavily subsidized than oil.  Drastically cutting oil use would do little to stem the alleged human-generated effects of global warming (even by alarmists’ standards).  However, it would almost certainly reduce the economic well-being of humanity, especially poorer countries.

The solution?  I thought Stossel’s guest, Jerry Taylor, put it best.  It is prudent to watch the weather, and we should be concerned if it becomes clear that we need to act.  In the meantime, the best way to help the poor is to help them get vitamins, clean water, and free trade.  The tangible benefits of wealth far outweigh any good done by crippling energy production.

–Terry thinks Al Gore is a strange fellow and wonders why he won’t debate the case of global warming on its merits.  Oh, wait.  He will make enough money from subsidized green businesses to fill an oil tanker.

Duh.