New York City Tea Party to Rename Itself King George Tea Tax Party in Honor of Rick Lazio

The Tea Party movement was started by Ron Paul and his followers.  It was then adopted and perhaps coopted by a wide range of Republicans, many of whom have not thought very much about what they belive, or who are dupes of economic royalists, those who would have supported King George on December 16, 1773.  Nowhere is the confusion more evident than among those Republicans who claim to be members of a "tea party" but who support a candidate like Rick Lazio, a lobbyist for JP Morgan who oversaw the transfer of $25 billion from the public purse to the private pockets of JP Morgan's incompetent, morally depraved executives.

The royalist, pro Rick Lazio Tea Party movement should consider renaming itself the King George Tea Tax movement. Supporters of the bailout are advocates of higher taxes, more regulation, more corruption and the kind of insane public policies that King George favored. 

How Embarrassing for the New York Times

The Buffalo News reports that the socialist advocates of welfare for bankers at the New York Times have endorsed a socialist advocate of welfare for bankers, Rick Lazio.  How embarrassing for the Times.

Robin Yess to Become Ulster County's GOP Committtee Chair

Robin Yess, Incoming Chair of the Ulster County Republican Committee

Mario Catalano, chair of the Ulster County Republican Committee, just e-mailed that he has decided not to seek another term of office.  He had previously announced his intention not to run, but there has been renewed discussion of his seeking another term.  Robin Yess, the current Vice Chair, had already announced her intention to seek the chair position, which presented a potential contest.  The committee positions are not paid and the rooms aren't even smoke filled. Go figure that two people actually wanted the job.  Both Catalano and Yess are good candidates for chair, and I was glad to see Mario decide not to change his mind and stick to his previous announcement that he was not going to run.

Maurice Hinchey Is So 14th Century

About two years ago Congressman Maurice Hinchey proposed to affix price controls to gasoline.  This recent example of economic illiteracy is hardly surprising. Polls have consistently found that social democrats have virtually no understanding of economics, which is probably why they are social democrats in the first place.  Sadly, this level of ignorance is shared by both parties, both of which supported the "bailout".

The popular image of the Middle Ages is that there was little knowledge about markets and that all of society lived happily on a feudal estate where there was no money and no economy in the modern sense. This claim has been turned into Tönnies's sociological constructs of "gemeinschaft" and "geselleschaft".  The gemeinschaft economy supposedly characteristic of the Middle Ages was one governed by organic unity, common beliefs and the like, whereas the geselleschaft economy is more or less the market economy.

It turns out that the vision of the Medieval economy on which Tönnies's constructs were based is wrong.  Also, it appears that by the 14th century European monarchs already had better economic understanding than today's Democrats.  In other words, there was a practical but likely not a theoretical understanding of how markets work.  Fourteenth century monks knew more about economics than my economically illiterate congressman, Maurice Hinchey.

Allow me to quote a passage concerning English history from Joel Kaye's essay "Monetary and Market Consciousness in Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century Europe" which appears on pages 379-80 of Lowry and Gordon's "Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice":

 "The clearest witness to this perception among English chroniclers is the author of the Via Edwardi Secundi. Though this chronicle was intended to record the reign of Edward II and his struggles, thoughts about money and prices continually crop up, as if they, in themselves, had historical significance to the writer and his audience.


"In 1315 after the military disaster at Bannockburn and in reaction to a terrible harvest and steeply rising prices, the chronicler records that Parliament, 'looking to the welfare of the state, appointed a remedy for this malady'. Prices on common foodstuffs such as oxen, pigs, sheep and chickens were fixed by law. The next year, 1316, Parliament was forced to reverse itself and cancel the maximum price edicts it had imposed even though the country was still in the grip of a disastrous harvest and rising prices.  Here is how the chronicler explains it:

"'The regulations formerly made about food were completely abolished...For as a result of that statute little or nothing was exposed for sale in the markets, whereas formerly there had been an abundant market in goods, though they seemed dear to travelers.  But it is better to buy dear than to find in the case of need that there is nothing to be had.  For although scarcity of corn raises the price, subsequent plenty will improve the situation.'

"Not only does the author choose to include this particular act of Parliament in his chronicle (when up to this point he mentioned Parliament only briefly and then only when it concerned King Edward), but he sees fit to add his own thoughts on the subject.  He notes that goods disappear as the result of price fixing and that high price is preferable to scarcity....

"There is no doubt that  a systematic conception of the market as a dynamic, self-regulating system constructed around the instrument of money had long been held among traders and those whose livelihood centered on trade. A glance at the journals of fourteenth-century merchants reveals how sophisticated their understanding of the market had become, and how central this understanding was to every aspect of their activity."

In fact, fourteenth century merchants had greater economic sophistication than social democratic congressmen of 21st century America.