Change; Yes we can? More like, probably not.

While there exist better ways, one certain (as now empirically evident) way to fool the masses is to speak in non-specific, subjective language. Now that the election is over and the change mantra has lulled many into a false state of security, let us examine, what should be, the self-evident meaning behind “change”.

Everyone wants change of some sort or to change something, in fact through a reflective process this is typically how each one of us goes about progressing our lives. But the problem here is that the word change has zero intrinsic value; change standing by itself, without a quantifier, cannot be broadly measured -- much like marginal utility. Change is not synonymous with good, nor is it necessarily a pejorative. The word change has zero objective meaning. And, being that objectivity is the true nature of reality should lead one to understand that what we will mostly like get is “change” only in the subjective nature of politics. Thus, only time will provide the objective measure as to whether change has occurred and whether or not it was forward-moving.

Although it is still very early to tell, many of the recent implications and nominations by the Obama transition team appears to be altering the “yes we can” into a probably not. For starters, the nominations for staff and cabinet positions seem to be an attempt to replicate the Clinton years (a la Rahm Emanuel and John Podesta); see here. Secondly, much of Obama’s forthcoming agenda is merely more of the same. The same being that much of his ideas are previous failures; New Deal and Great Society. Lastly, and also inclusive with the second, is the idea that The Great Healer can solve our economic situation. Well, again recent evidence should signal to us all that there will be more of the same. See here.

We cannot possibly correct our economy with a simplistic mention of change here, or a suggestion of change there. What we need is exactly the opposite of this “change”. We need to move back toward economic freedom (this requires going all the way back to Silent Cal and before, aside some exceptions). We need to separate politics from our economy. We need to also come to recognize when we are being fooled by sophistry. If the following is not an indicator that many simply swallowed-up the idea of change (in political party) just for the sake of change, then a better example I cannot provide; “Exit polls showed that 62 percent of the electorate said the economy was the most important issue”. More bailouts, more moral hazard, more economic stimulus packages, more socialization, more subsidies; Yes we can!

Again, while it is too early to measure exactly what we get, the implications of more of the same are what’s on the table. "But once the legislator is elected and freed from his campaign promises, oh, then his language changes! The nation returns to passivity, to inertia, to nothingness, and the legislator takes on the character of omnipotence. His the invention, his the direction, his the impulsion, his the organization. Mankind has nothing to do but to let things be done to it; the hour of despotism has arrived." Frederic Bastiat's, The Law