Marines Raise the Flag: True then and True Now

Early on D plus 4 (February 23, 1945), men of companies E and F, 2nd Battalion, 28th Marines,made it through battle debris to the top of Mt. Suribachi. They raised the first flag, to be followed four hours later by the more famous flag raising. On the beachhead below, thousands of Marines saw the tiny flag.




(Scanned page from "The Spearhead, the World War II History of the 5th Marine Division." Also,A few stamps from my collection)

Tea Baggers Choose Freedom

A Seattle radio talk show host Friday evening asked each caller for the first thing that came to their mind when he said "Tea Party." Callers had some good comments about taxation, truth, and the constitution. I have to answer that question too. What comes to mind for me is Freedom. An overwhelming love of freedom along with a fear of loosing it, it seems to me, is what the tea party goers have in common.

Lower taxation is of course a form of freedom. The government enslaves us to the extent that it demands the fruits of our labor. Truth and freedom also go hand in hand. When he said, "the truth shall set you free," Jesus probably wasn't talking about freedom of speech, but he could have been. Despots, tyrants, and dictators, not only use force for control, but must first gain support through lies. They must create enemies and denigrate their political opponents. The principal and purpose behind the constitution is freedom, freedom through law. Would-be despots will always attempt to circumvent the restrains on their power of the constitution.

High taxation, lies, disdain for the limits to government power imposed by the constitution; these constitute threats to a free people. That is what the brings us to the tea parties.

Better to Pull that Push

BHO says he wants Republicans to join him in guiding the nation in the right direction. With an overwhelming Democrat congress and media support for his socialist/progressive policies, it would be hard for Republicans to push any agenda changes from within a bipartisan coalition. More likely, they would be dragged along for the ride. If they stay independent and set their own course, maybe they can pull some support in the direction they want. This is now happening and the Democrats and BHO don't like it.

Give Freedom a Chance

I have only called two radio talk shows: Larry King twenty some years ago to ask a Nixon administration official how we managed to screw up so badly on relations with Iran. He did not seem to understand the question. I also called Curtis Sliwa about six months ago, (actually I was trying to call Mark Levin). I wanted to discuss the similarities between the Roosevelt and Obama economic policies. I told him what my grandpa George thought of Roosevelt (see earlier post). Mr. Sliwa did not agree that the situations were similar. He thought that in the early 1930’s the economy was worse. I told him that neither administration was allowing markets to clear. He did not understand this. He thought that I meant the financial markets, which he said were corrupt.

What I meant by markets, were the markets for goods and services. By clearing, I meant that products and services offered for sale, would sell. What I mean by the administrations not allowing this was that both administration’s economic policies propped prices up. People are and were not willing to pay the price offered. Normally, this would cause prices to go down. Instead, the government is going into the market to buy goods and services and prop up prices by other means. This keeps prices up but keeps production down because individuals are not buying at the propped-up prices. (I refer to the price of nearly everything: food, housing, labor…). Unemployment results. Markets still clear, but at a lower level of activity.

Glen Beck today, spoke about the 1920 depression. In 1920, economic conditions were much worse that in 1929 and 1930. Although President Harding did nothing to interfere with the economy, in 18 months the economy recovered. In 1920, Harding proposed no bailouts, stimulants, or jobs programs. Unemployment had risen above 10%, housing values dropped dramatically, and GDP plunged. This was due to various policies of the Wilson administration. Harding took over, did nothing, and the economy quickly recovered on its own. This is a well known example cited by free market economists, which of course, everyone ignores. Prices adjust and markets clear. Soon the economy picks up and prices, including wages, and production begin to rise again. (Things went well until the policies of Hoover (or Bush), which were actually the original New Deal, caused more trouble. This was made infinitely worse by FDR (and BHO). YES, believe it or not: History does Repeat itself.)

An interesting starting point for economic study is “Say’s Law.” Named after Jean-Baptiste Say, who stated that markets always clear. This has been restated as, “supply creates its own demand.” Meaning that the money received for our goods and services (supply), allows us to purchase other goods and services (demand). Keynesians and Obamaites have this idea backwards.

The implications of Say’s Law raise questions that have led to the development of modern economic theories. Free market economists state that imbalances occur most often because of government interference. That interference is what caused recessions and depressions. By intentionally raising or lowering interest rates, the government misleads producers as to actual market conditions. Government creation of money to get out of a slump makes a bad situation worse. Furthermore, sometimes governments take partial or full control of certain industries, which is defined as socialism. Technocrats make orders for production based upon their short and long term plans. These plans may be based upon what they think we want, but more often on what they think we should want. They are bound to get it wrong, producing too much of some things and too little of others. The free market with millions of individuals acting as producers and consumers, basing their actions on ever changing prices, produces optimal results.

Gung Ho Fa Choi

I think that means happy New Years. Our town has many citizens from the east. The far east, that is. We have many Vietnamese of Chinese ancestry. Of course we had other Chinese before the recent Vietnamese immigrants, I suppose dating back to Chinese railroad workers. In any event, the Chinese community has some sort of a New Years celebration every year. Luckily, this year the weather was good for being outdoors and for photography.

Exploitation: By the Rich or the Government?

Newscasters of the mainstream press (or lamestream press, as Sarah calls it) never tire of reminding us of the multimillion dollar bonuses paid to wall street executives. They thereby gain a lot of public support for their favored policies and politicians. It is hard to argue that those bonuses are legitimately earned and good for their companies or for the economy as a whole. However, economic and business realities explain those sky-high payments. Without knowing many details about the operations of investment banking and other high level financial firms, such payments must also result from some form of government intervention in the market place. That is usually the case with seemingly inexplicable market phenomena.

Regarding the business explanations, there was a recent article in Atlantic Magazine that offered some insight. (Why Goldman Always Wins by Megan McArdle) The author, who had served as an intern at a large firm while a business student at an Ivy League school, stated that even the interns seemed to be paid much more than market forces justified. The fact of the matter is that businesses that make a large stock offering to the public are willing to pay top price because they have so much at stake. Multimillion share sales of stock, such as an initial public offerings, are one-time, make it or break it shots. An executive with experience, contacts, and a track record can bring in the business and a large salary is not only justified, but necessary to obtain his services. The market, as always, tries to find ways to do things for less. Google for example, did their initial public offering via the web. They met with only limited success, partly because the large investment banks, wanting to discredit the completion, did not participate. With a wall street deal of this type, presumably the bankers have plenty of contacts who they can place large chunks of stock with. Without those deals, Google got a lower price than they would have with the banks' help. The market did push the price way up later, but those gains went to the on-line investors, not to the original owners.

The high premium paid for the services of top wall street players can be understood by this sort of explanation. The second rate bankers, who charge lower fees, are just not worth the gamble with a high stakes deal. How did they ever come to dominate the market to such an extent that other firms cannot compete? It seems that government regulation must have made it difficult for others to enter the market and build a competing business. It should be noted that size is not the only factor, or even the most important factor. Of course, a large bank can prop-up a market itself when they buy with their own and with customers funds, but it seems that it is the individual with the contacts who is the indispensable deal maker. Therefore, government limitations on the size of a bank would, if anything, increase the value of key players.

This is a matter of economics, not of class warfare, as the Congressional Democrats and BHO tell us. Marx tried to blame our economic woes on class exploitation and he failed. The true liberals, the free market thinkers, explained that exploitation can only take place with government help and they proved it.

See the Ludvig von Mises Institute article of yesterday, from which the following is a quote:

"The implications of this insight are profound. The only way to make money on the free market is to produce what others want. The better one serves others, the more profit he earns; thus the market is grounded in mutual benefit and harmony of interests. This harmony, however, is transformed into conflict whenever government intervenes. If a business can get the government to keep out competitors, customers no longer have the ability to take their dollars elsewhere. Then, and only then, are companies in a position to raise prices or turn out shoddy products." -- David Osterfeld http://mises.org/daily/4062

February is a Month of Famous Dates

February has more that its share of dates of historical remembrance. I do not refer to Groundhogs Day or St. Valentines Days of even the anniversary of the founding of the Boy Scouts. The days of historical importance for Americans are the 12th, the 22nd, and the 19th. Although the birthdays of our two greatest presidents are celebrated on the 15th, George Washington's is on the 22nd and Abraham Lincoln's is on the 12th. (The birthday of the third greatest president is on the sixth.) The 19th is a day that will live in United States history because of what happened on that day in 1945. That was D-Day for the Iwo Jima landings of the United States Marines.

My father landed that day with the 27th Marines. The 26th and 28th Marine Regimental Combat Teams also landed. Together they comprised the primary maneuver elements of the Fifth Division. The Third and Forth divisions landed also. According to my father, of the approximately 60,000 marines, 5,000 died and 20,000 were wounded. The navy had at least hundreds of casualties also. About 20,000 Japanese defenders died and only a few hundred were captured, mostly too badly wounded to resist. The only way the nationality of many of the burned bodies could be determined was by the leggings. The Japaneses' were leather while the marine's were canvas. My father was on the island for the entire month long battle. He told me that once the marines returned to their ships, the island was turned over to the army. There was a flare-up of resistance from some Japanese who had eluded discovery. My dad's unit was sent back ashore to deal with the problem. He often told us this story to explain why he had so few souvenirs of the battle. When the marines on his troop ship were sent back to the island, the sailors took their few mementos. At least that was his story. He did have a few small items, including few spent bullets and a hand grenade pin. He also had the two blankets he used on Iwo Jima. He said that the sand was so hot, due to volcanic activity, that he had to roll over several times during the night. Those blankets he had slept on covered the seats of our 1950 Chevy. When we sold that car in the '60's, my dad was at work and my mom forgot to take off the blankets. She got in trouble for that.

One other day in February this year is Chinese New Year. It will be celebrated in our Chinese district (which is mostly composed of Vietnamese Chinese) on February 14th. I hope to take some pictures.

Can Obama Kill the Economy? Only Time Will Tell

It is no wonder that the stock market has been going down. It is in the red for the year, loosing maybe a third of the uphill gains it had made since the big bust in the fall of 2008. It is not a coincidence that the biggest losses have come days after the president announced his new budget. BHO proposes spending that will vastly increase the current annual deficits, and therefore borrowing. He also wants congress to increase taxes, especially business taxes. This is the first pay-off of his blitzkrieg propaganda campaign against banks and big business. By the way, US business is already taxed at rates near the top for all industrialized nation. The new taxes also include an increase in taxes on corporate dividends. Dividends are only paid by successful corporations. Conservative mutual funds often concentrate their investments among these usually slower growing, yet dependable companies. So investments in these companies will be targeted, along with struggling growth and value investments. Investment in bonds is risky too, because if interest rates go up to keep up with the lowering value of the dollar (i. e. inflation), then the value of the current bonds will go down, because new bond will be paying higher rates.

Of course, higher business taxes are not only bad for investors but they are bad for workers. With profits being taxed away, how can companies expand and hire? Most of us are both workers and investors so we get a double whammy. This could help social security, since no one will be able to afford to retire. (If they have a job to retire from, that is.)

The American economy was showing signs of recovery in spite of the disastrous policies of the last 12 months. The American economy is like an old war elephant. Although it has been shot full of arrows, it keeps plodding along. But for how long? Barrack Obama is shooting those arrows from his quiver of economic 'stimulus' programs. One is labeled 'Cash for Clunkers.' There is another arrow called 'Shovel Ready Projects.' Two or three really big arrows are the 'Jobs Bills.' 'Health Care' and 'Carbon Tax' are still in his quiver. He has let fly the new 'Big Bank Busters' and 'Business Tax' arrows. You can see the elephant shudder. (Incidentally,Obama does not want individual tax decreases to remain in place either. Those arrows are at the ready.) He has now notched the great 'Deficit Arrow;' that should bring the beast down.

Another Re-Run: Mises on Socialism

I couldn't resist a rerun from a post from last Summer:

Ludwig von Mises: "Socialism... is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created." - Socialism

We need more information about what is meant by "socialism" and why its opponents are so vehement in their opposition. Sorry I can't provide that right at the moment. Stay tuned.

Global Warmies Keep Rolling Along

We can expect damage control after the recent exposure of lies from the global warming so-called scientists. Our answer is that a diploma, government grant, or high paying quasigovernmental job does not a scientist make. The latest damage control talking point is that the 'science' is still rock hard, just a few of the spokespeople got a little carried away. There is still not one word of a scientific nature from the current spokespeople in defense of their proposition that manmade CO2 causes significant global warming. The science is settled, it is 'rock hard.' The dire climate situation is worse that we thought. Instead of being 64.7% sure, we are now 97.8% sure that we are correct about being doomed if we continue the current unsustainable course. (By the way they failed to mention the 64.7% part when they made their earlier dire predictions.)

A strong indication of where the are coming from is that almost invariably they eventually advance the augment that even if there is no global warming, this is still the right thing to do. The 'thing' is often unstated but what they want and have always wanted is a cap-and-trade like scheme. Cap-and-trade schemes, by their own terms, involve new government controls over any enterprise that uses energy.

(There was an elitist demagogue so-called scientist on the Bryan Suits KVI radio show the other day, who used the 'rock hard' talking point)

In any event, we still await a scientific (i.e. mathematical) statement of the global warming theory, if any exists. Then we want to see their scientific defenses of their theory. Then we can take it apart scientifically. If there are other environmental arguments for more economic interference in the way energy is obtained, supplied, and used; those are different questions. We would be glad to refute those and we have refuted those separately. (Which is precisely why they need the global warming deception.) If changes in policy are proposed because of global warming, then we want to have the global warming debate. It was promised and is overdue. They claim they had the debate among themselves and we lost. Public policy should be an open covenant, openly arrived at, shouldn't it?

Free Maket Healthcare: the Left not Listening Still

Here is a link to an article in Fortune. 45rrrrrrrrrrrr (my cat just typed that)

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/economy/health_care_danger.fortune/index.htm


The article gives a few suggestions for healthcare plans that do not require the nearly complete government involvement that the current Obama / Congress / socialist plans do. Basically, it proposes removing state regulations so we can obtain whatever coverage we want. We will not be limited to the policies and companies that our state insurance commissions allow. That means high deductible, lower cost plans. There would be an assigned risk pool for those with serious medical conditions. This is similar to what we have to insure people with very bad driving records. The rates for those plans would be set at about 150% of a well person of the same age. If a person could not afford insurance for whatever reason, there would be government assistance on a sliding scale. Something like that has been advocated for years by Republicans of free market orientation. it has so far fallen of deaf ears, even of those with big enough ears to hear quite well.

Since a plan like this would require little of the government, we would not be dependent on government bureaucrats for our medical care. (That is to say, we would not have to kiss their ass.) That's why the Party Members are not interested.

Petition to RFK, Jr. RE: Get Some Sense

[left click to enlarge, back arrow to return]

I received a letter from Robert F Kennedy, Jr. today. I was flattered and thought that maybe he had been reading chickenshitnewworld. However as I read the letter I realized that he certainly didn't learn anything if he had been reading this blog or the linked sites. In fact he started out bad-mouthing Sarah Palin, which I thought was very unbecoming and unimaginative. What he wanted was money, like everyone else. He wanted to help some polar bears who he thought were in danger. I was disappointed. I thought that he and a few of his friends could get together enough cash to help hundreds of polar bears.

Anyway, I did not send any money because of his attitude. Besides not liking Her Excellency, Gov. Palin, he was against drilling for oil. Even though some oil companies want to drill on only a very tiny area of Alaska, he is against it. Because he believes in man made global warming (MMGW), he is against oil altogether. He obviously has been taken in by the Al Gore tricksters, too bad.

I did sign and return the petition that he sent, after making a few corrections. As the nephew of a president of the United States and son of an attorney general, I felt he was due that respect. Hopefully, he will use some common sense and stop being a Democrat. I attach the the petition above. On the envelope, I used the Alaska Statehood 50th anniversary stamp and the 3 cent Lincoln Gettysburg address stamp from the 1960's. ("That government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth")