Because our central bank is pursuing a price stabilization policy, we are not seeing the deflation that we would otherwise. So-called financial experts are saying, "steady as she goes," prices aren't rising, therefore inflation is not a concern. With the current low interest rates and government spending, there is a lot of money flowing into the economy. This is countering the current tendency of people and businesses to be cautious with spending. Lowering price levels is the mechanism by which we get out of a recession. The government is not helping by fighting the flow and intentionally keeping prices fairly level. They are doing this mainly to help the banks, which would continue to lose on real estate if prices fell. (Which would mean more Federal Deposit 'Insurance' payments.)
This is a good example of how government pursues a bad policy to mitigate the results of their past policy of interference. If there were no government deposit insurance, banks would have had to slow down long ago, or else lose deposits. The government could afford to leave them alone if it didn't have to make good the depositor's losses. Now they are just digging a deeper hole. As they say, the first step to getting out of the hole is to stop digging. Loose money leads to business (and local governments) investing in long term capital improvement. That creates the proverbial bridges to nowhere. If the economy can not currently support growth, that investment will not be needed and will be wasted.
The result will probably be a harder landing when we hit bottom. If they shift gears to support the dollar, which they will have to do, interests rates and prices may start to spiral up and BHO and his Fed chief won't be able to do anything about it. If they would have cut taxes and spending a year ago and stuck to it, things would look better by now. At this point, that would still be a good policy. Unfortunately, HBO is still on a spending spree and talking about who to tax to pay for some of it. On top of that, he wants banks to lend more, especially to home buyers. He's like a gambler who wants to keep doubling his bet in the hopes of getting even.
It's time that the Republicans in Congress take every opportunity to say "no more."
Monday, October 26, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Liberty Belle
I found a site that deals with politics and economics in depth and with style.
http://www.piavarma.com/
She has had several articles appear in major business and libertarian websites and publications.
http://www.piavarma.com/
She has had several articles appear in major business and libertarian websites and publications.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Unmitigated Health Care Disaster
At my job, I work with medical care providers and medical insurance companies on a daily basis. The system is truly overburdened already with excessive rules and convoluted procedures which are intended to comply with sate and federal regulations. (For example the HIPAA -Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, EURISA -Employee Retirement and Security Act, State workers compensation laws, and the state insurance commission regulations.) Any new law, especially federal law, spawns a new bureaucracy and makes plenty of work for thousands of lawyers, (work that they often would prefer not to have to do.) Everything takes longer that it should and costs more that it should.
In spite of the problems, the attorneys, government bureaucrats, care providers, and insurance companies have worked out a system that is far from perfect, but which functions. It has evolved to solve the difficulties in providing and paying for health care. If a new federal medical law is passed, it would create yet another system that is superimposed upon it. The result will be an unmitigated bureaucratic disaster.
When I started this blog, I was going to call it Brave New World, which would be an ironic reference to Aldous Huxley’s book by that name. Actually, Aldous Huxley’s title is an ironic reference to a line from Shakespeare. He was writing about a future society where a totalitarian regime guided by utopian theories of how to change man, creates big mess. In fact a ‘dystopia.’ Mr. Huxley was of course being ironic himself and what he was really talking about was a chicken shit new world. I decided to cut the irony and just call it what it is. See this link to an informative essay about Huxley and Brave New World: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/context.html A quote from the essay: “Much of his work deals with the conflict between the interests of the individual and society… These themes reached their zenith in Huxley’s Brave New World, published in 1932. His most enduring work imagined a fictional future in which free will and individuality have been sacrificed in deference to complete social stability.” The BHO administration and his Party, Central Committees, Commissars, and propaganda is just what Huxley had in mind.
In spite of the problems, the attorneys, government bureaucrats, care providers, and insurance companies have worked out a system that is far from perfect, but which functions. It has evolved to solve the difficulties in providing and paying for health care. If a new federal medical law is passed, it would create yet another system that is superimposed upon it. The result will be an unmitigated bureaucratic disaster.
When I started this blog, I was going to call it Brave New World, which would be an ironic reference to Aldous Huxley’s book by that name. Actually, Aldous Huxley’s title is an ironic reference to a line from Shakespeare. He was writing about a future society where a totalitarian regime guided by utopian theories of how to change man, creates big mess. In fact a ‘dystopia.’ Mr. Huxley was of course being ironic himself and what he was really talking about was a chicken shit new world. I decided to cut the irony and just call it what it is. See this link to an informative essay about Huxley and Brave New World: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/context.html A quote from the essay: “Much of his work deals with the conflict between the interests of the individual and society… These themes reached their zenith in Huxley’s Brave New World, published in 1932. His most enduring work imagined a fictional future in which free will and individuality have been sacrificed in deference to complete social stability.” The BHO administration and his Party, Central Committees, Commissars, and propaganda is just what Huxley had in mind.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Robert Reich on Death Panels
Another Obama adviser states that if politicians told the truth to voters one of the items that they would address regarding health care is diminished care for the elderly. So who would decide what is excessive care for an ill elderly? A panel, I would hope. Unfortunately, as I sated before, what they would more likely get is a denial of service from a computer based upon age and diagnosis profile compared to a cost and likely outcome table or algorithm. So Sarah Palin was probably wrong. You won't get a panel only a computer code and a faceless bureaucracy to appeal to. However, for now, it appears that health care/economic adviser to the president, Mr. Reich says you will get less care. The decision may or may not come from a panel, but that is not the point. So Sarah Palin was correct and deserves an apology.
The rest of Mr. Reich's spiel is interesting too, and surprisingly candid and correct. (It is not really fair to call him Robert Third Riech) Hear him:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=9040
The rest of Mr. Reich's spiel is interesting too, and surprisingly candid and correct. (It is not really fair to call him Robert Third Riech) Hear him:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=9040
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Bill Cunningham's Rating Set To Improve
According to Billy Cunningham on his Sunday radio talk show, he is only number 19 on the Barack Husein Obama [BHO] enemies list. After some of his remarks tonight, I think he may make the top ten. He says that Al Gore is a fake, a fraud, and a farce (also a clown and a sycophant). Jimmy Carter is an old fool and BHO did nothing to deserve the Nobel Prize. He later noted the Nevile Chamberlain was considered for a Nobel Prize just before the start of WWII, which he helped to start by backing down from Adolph Hitler. BHO appears to be an appeaser in like manner.
I note that in some translations of "The Emperor's New Clothes," the fake tailors are awarded a prize for their beautiful work, which no one had the courage to admit they could not see.
Mr. Cunningham talked about BHO organizations ACORN and the Apollo Alliance and the evils inherent therein.
Mr. Cunningham goes on to discuss the past calls from feminists for the resignation of various Republicans and conservatives for sexual contact with younger female employees. (Or even foolish allegations, as in the case of Clarance Thomas.) According to feminists, these relatively innocuous actions were the epitome of exploitation. He asks why the rules are different for liberals such as Bill Jefferson (B. J.) Clinton and Dave Letterman. He also asks why the remarks of Letterman regarding Sarah Palin and her daughters are regarded as OK by feminists and liberals and the press. He asks about the lack of concern about Roman Polanski, of which Oprah says that he was not guilty of rape rape. Mr. Cunningham and his guest, John Ziggler, discuss many other interesting examples.
I wonder about these things. Obviously many feminists are not really concerned about the treatment of women just as many environmentalists are not concerned about the environment. They are using their feigned outrage as a means of advancing their political aims. The press is obviously going along because it supports the same political aims, as does BHO. I should be on that list too.
I note that in some translations of "The Emperor's New Clothes," the fake tailors are awarded a prize for their beautiful work, which no one had the courage to admit they could not see.
Mr. Cunningham talked about BHO organizations ACORN and the Apollo Alliance and the evils inherent therein.
Mr. Cunningham goes on to discuss the past calls from feminists for the resignation of various Republicans and conservatives for sexual contact with younger female employees. (Or even foolish allegations, as in the case of Clarance Thomas.) According to feminists, these relatively innocuous actions were the epitome of exploitation. He asks why the rules are different for liberals such as Bill Jefferson (B. J.) Clinton and Dave Letterman. He also asks why the remarks of Letterman regarding Sarah Palin and her daughters are regarded as OK by feminists and liberals and the press. He asks about the lack of concern about Roman Polanski, of which Oprah says that he was not guilty of rape rape. Mr. Cunningham and his guest, John Ziggler, discuss many other interesting examples.
I wonder about these things. Obviously many feminists are not really concerned about the treatment of women just as many environmentalists are not concerned about the environment. They are using their feigned outrage as a means of advancing their political aims. The press is obviously going along because it supports the same political aims, as does BHO. I should be on that list too.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Tonight on Tabath Smiley
The thesis of the guest is that the evangelical movement (christian radical right) tried to take over the federal government but could only manage to take over the Republican Party. What they want is a theocracy to replace the constitution. Every non-believer would be relegated to second class status, if not executed. Tabatha mainly goes along with it all. They have no capacity for self-reflection and so they rally around Sarah Palin. This of course is very bad for the Republican Party so they should choose leaders more like John McCain and not like Sara Palin. Their Nazis plans are based upon the ideas of Lyndon LaRoush and Adolf Hitler. Tabatha only asks for a few more details. Conclusion: the public should see how radical the Republicans really are, they aren't dead they are the Undead Zombies (where have I heard that?) attacking President Obama's great ideas like government healthcare with their defunct ideology. This is a moment for the Progressives to seize! -- Max Blumenthal, "The American Gomorrah"
I see two things going on here:
1) Liberals getting books published to counter the 20 or 30 recent best seller conservative books. Don't buy the liberal books yet. You can get them at the Dollar Store in a month or so.
2) As their usual prelude to another attack on our liberties, one of the first steps is to accuse the right of exactly what the left has been doing and is going to try to do some more.
Tabatha Smiley says, "Remember, keep the faith."
see more about Tabatha at pbs.org
Why can't I see more about Ludvig von Mises at pbs.org or
Walter Williams or Alan Keyes?
I see two things going on here:
1) Liberals getting books published to counter the 20 or 30 recent best seller conservative books. Don't buy the liberal books yet. You can get them at the Dollar Store in a month or so.
2) As their usual prelude to another attack on our liberties, one of the first steps is to accuse the right of exactly what the left has been doing and is going to try to do some more.
Tabatha Smiley says, "Remember, keep the faith."
see more about Tabatha at pbs.org
Why can't I see more about Ludvig von Mises at pbs.org or
Walter Williams or Alan Keyes?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Can We Realy Share the Wealth?
My answer is: No, not without destroying the wealth. Every redistribution plan ultimately does not work. Not in the long run, not in the medium run, or even much beyond today. Analysis of the outcome of plans to redirect economic activity from the free market shows that eventual collapse of any such plan is inevitable. It may not be obvious because a dozen other plans will usually be adopted to correct the outcome of the initial plan but they always result in the same thing: less wealth or impoverishment for everyone and back to the drawing board.
This weekend Les Leopold was on the Coast to Coast radio program. He is the author of "The Looting of America." He is a good spokesman for socialism of the disguised form, as is president Obama and a large segment of his administration. He has all the arguments and is able rhetorically to avoid the tough questions. Ian Pundant, the shows host, did a good job of allowing him enough rope to hang himself. He allowed Mr. Leopold to explain his ideas without the least hint of criticism.
Mr. Leopold's ideas all stem from the notion the there is an unequal distribution of wealth. This is especially true of Wall Street and that inequality is somehow the cause of the last and probably all other market collapses. He says that great wealth leads to a "casino atmosphere." This certainly is in keeping with popular sentiment and may be exactly the kind of argument that leads to the BHO takeover of the financial system. That is essentially what he proposed although in the most veiled terms. He states that Milton Friedman is the most to blame for our current economic troubles because his philosophy led to all of "this deregulation." Again, I ask what deregulation? Also again I ask, how could regulators have helped when it was government policy itself that they would have to regulate? Callers to the talk show program and later the host disputed Mr. Leopold's thesis. His responses revealed him for the well rehearsed snake oil salesman that he is. He asked one caller if he would agree with his various schemes if he could convince him that the great inequality of wealth on Wall Street was what causes collapses in the financial system. He said that his book contained definitive arguments. The caller said that he could never convince him of that and he couldn't convince me either.
(some of Mr. Leopold and friends: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/fear-and-looting-in-ameri_b_208153.htmlhttp://www.expressmilwaukee.com/blog-3834-qa-with-les-leopold-author-of-the-looting-of-ameri.html)
I, like Thomas Jefferson, "have sworn hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I cannot be convinced that socialism is in some way just or can be beneficial to either the immediate recipient of government largess or to the ones that must be robbed to enable that largess. I agree with the dictums of Frank Chodorov, of the old right. It was written of him in 1952:
This weekend Les Leopold was on the Coast to Coast radio program. He is the author of "The Looting of America." He is a good spokesman for socialism of the disguised form, as is president Obama and a large segment of his administration. He has all the arguments and is able rhetorically to avoid the tough questions. Ian Pundant, the shows host, did a good job of allowing him enough rope to hang himself. He allowed Mr. Leopold to explain his ideas without the least hint of criticism.
Mr. Leopold's ideas all stem from the notion the there is an unequal distribution of wealth. This is especially true of Wall Street and that inequality is somehow the cause of the last and probably all other market collapses. He says that great wealth leads to a "casino atmosphere." This certainly is in keeping with popular sentiment and may be exactly the kind of argument that leads to the BHO takeover of the financial system. That is essentially what he proposed although in the most veiled terms. He states that Milton Friedman is the most to blame for our current economic troubles because his philosophy led to all of "this deregulation." Again, I ask what deregulation? Also again I ask, how could regulators have helped when it was government policy itself that they would have to regulate? Callers to the talk show program and later the host disputed Mr. Leopold's thesis. His responses revealed him for the well rehearsed snake oil salesman that he is. He asked one caller if he would agree with his various schemes if he could convince him that the great inequality of wealth on Wall Street was what causes collapses in the financial system. He said that his book contained definitive arguments. The caller said that he could never convince him of that and he couldn't convince me either.
(some of Mr. Leopold and friends: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/fear-and-looting-in-ameri_b_208153.htmlhttp://www.expressmilwaukee.com/blog-3834-qa-with-les-leopold-author-of-the-looting-of-ameri.html)
I, like Thomas Jefferson, "have sworn hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I cannot be convinced that socialism is in some way just or can be beneficial to either the immediate recipient of government largess or to the ones that must be robbed to enable that largess. I agree with the dictums of Frank Chodorov, of the old right. It was written of him in 1952:
"Listening to Mr. Chodorov, you won't
get any meaningless gabble about "Right" and "Left," or "progressive'" and
"reactionary," or liberalism as a philosophy of the "middle of the road." Mr. Chodorov deals in far more fundamental
distinctions. There is, for example, the Chodorovian distinction between social
power and political power. Social power develops from the creation of wealth by
individuals working alone or in voluntary concert. Political power, on the other
hand, grows by the forcible appropriation of the individual's social power.""People on Our Side: Frank Chodorov"
Mises Daily by John Chamberlain
Posted on 10/5/2009 12:00:00
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)