A Brass Age?

· Wednesday, January 25, 2012

This may be the golden age of presumptuous ignorance. The most recent demonstrations of that are the Occupy Wall Street mobs. It is doubtful how many of these semi-literate sloganizers could tell the difference between a stock and a bond.

Yet there they are, mouthing off about Wall Street on television, cheered on by politicians and the media. If this is not a golden age of presumptuous ignorance, perhaps it should be called a brass age.

No one has more brass than the President of the United States, though his brass may be more polished than that of the Occupy Wall Street mobs. When Barack Obama speaks loftily about "investing in the industries of the future," does anyone ask: What in the world would qualify him to know what are the industries of the future?

Why would people who have spent their careers in politics know more about investing than people who have spent their careers as investors?

Presumptuous ignorance is not confined to politicians or rowdy political activists, by any means. From time to time, I get a huffy letter or e-mail from a reader who begins, "You obviously don't know what you are talking about..."

The particular subject may be one on which my research assistants and I have amassed piles of research material and official statistics. It may even be a subject on which I have written a few books, but somehow the presumptuously ignorant just know that I didn't really study that issue, because my conclusions don't agree with theirs or with what they have heard.

At one time I was foolish enough to try to reason with such people. But one of the best New Year's resolutions I ever made, some years ago, was to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people. It has been good for my blood pressure and probably for my health in general.

A recent column that mentioned the "indirect subsidies" from the government to the Postal Service brought the presumptuously ignorant out in force, fighting mad.

Because the government does not directly subsidize the current operating expenses of the Postal Service, that is supposed to show that the Postal Service pays its own way and costs the taxpayers nothing.

Politicians may be crooks but they are not fools. Easily observed direct subsidies can create a political problem. Far better to set up an arrangement that will allow government-sponsored enterprises -- whether the Postal Service, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Tennessee Valley Authority -- to operate in such a way that they can claim to be self-supporting and not costing the taxpayers anything, no matter how much indirect subsidy they get.

As just one example, the Postal Service has a multi-billion dollar line of credit at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Hey, we could all use a few billions, every now and then, to get us over the rough spots. But we are not the Postal Service.

Theoretically, the Postal Service is going to pay it all back some day, and that theoretical possibility keeps it from being called a direct subsidy. The Postal Service is also exempt from paying taxes, among other exemptions it has from costs that other businesses have to pay.

Exemption from taxes, and from other requirements that apply to other businesses, are also not called subsidies. For people who mistake words for realities, that is enough for them to buy the political line -- and to get huffy with those who don't.

Loan guarantees are a favorite form of hidden subsidies for all sorts of special interests. At a given point in time, it can be said that these guarantees cost the taxpayers nothing. But when they suddenly do cost something -- as with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- they can cost billions.

One of the reasons for so much presumptuous ignorance flourishing in our time may be the emphasis on "self-esteem" in our schools and colleges. Children not yet a decade old have been encouraged, or even required, to write letters to public figures, sounding off on issues ranging from taxes to nuclear missiles.

Our schools begin promoting presumptuous ignorance early on. It is apparently one of the few things they teach well. The end result is people without much knowledge, but with a lot of brass.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

mmccrindle

Thus we have a President who thinks he knows everything but doesn't even know the half of it.

What a dangerous thing indeed.

Posted January 25, 2012 at 9:00:36 AM


Daylo

In addition, Mr. Sowell, Obama has a huge problem with his "fair share' mantra. He has ignored that there are millions on welfare simply because they never had the ambition to earn money for themselves, and are quite happy having the rest of America take care of our ownselves and them too. This has been an ongoing problem. Add that to the mix of no jobs and millions more on welfare solely because of the lack of work, who are not able to contribute to everyone's "fair share" and therefore the burden is now squarely on the back of the working sap. The problem in a nutshell is that Obama's government is claiming too many dependents on its tax return.

Posted January 25, 2012 at 11:39:39 AM


Richard Ryan

I like Dr.Sowell`s decision to never reason with the unreasonable. My dad taught me to never wratle with a pig. You just end up getting dirty and the pig enjoys it. The same goes for the liberal pigs in government.

Richard Ryan

Lamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman

Posted January 25, 2012 at 12:29:14 PM


Clarence E. DeBarrows

Richard: You had me going for the dictionary with your "wratle with a pig". Guess I'm slowing down in my senior years, but I finally figured out your old man was right, only it's wrestle!

Posted January 25, 2012 at 12:43:33 PM


Ed Watts

Don't forget William Jefferson Clinton, who, while still in college, fancied himself to be one of the world's leading experts on nuclear weapons and strategy.

I saw a [liberal] spokesman on television yesterday who said that more people were receiving food stamps during the Bush II administration than on Obama's watch. When the show's host disagreed and cited supporting statistics from the current administration, the liberal fellow condescendingly replied, "I'm not going to argue with you." While he may not have been ignorant (in which case he was simply lying), he was certainly presumptuous.

Posted January 25, 2012 at 2:35:36 PM


Duane Beam

Mr. Sowell,

I too gave up trying to be reasonable with unreasonable people. It has saved me headaches and untold stress. I have discovered your work about ten years ago and I still can't get enough. I read Basic Economics and Applied Economics at least once a year to keep myself grounded against the storm of disinformation in the media.

Thank you for your service.

Posted January 25, 2012 at 2:47:26 PM


pete

Clarence DeBarrows, I also once made a typo like Mr. Ryan did. Then I realized that skunk or stunk didn't make that much difference when referring to odious behavior.

As for our illustrious postal system, a few years ago I mailed 250 commemorative coins. I specifically requested they be hand stamped, and paid for protective envelopes and extra postage.

One coin arrived. ONE!

All the others received envelopes containing only the letter explaining what the coins were for. Final cost was well in excess of $600.

Now tell me again why I should continue to use the USPS>

Posted January 25, 2012 at 4:16:22 PM


Jeremy

Another outstanding article from Dr. Sowell.

Of course, a lot of that presumptuous ignorance comes from centers of higher education. I know this for a fact, since I work in just such a place.

Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:15:40 AM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund