I have not been writing my comments on current events lately, partly because I am too busy, but also because there has not been much new. Current political events are merely elaborations on the themes of one or two years ago. For instance, see my post of August 11, 2009, Mixed-Up Economy: We Are All Blood Suckers Now. The war of ideas between the Keynesian outlook and the Free market/Small Government school rages even more today.
Another theme of this blog, which has never been as obvious as now, is the observation that generally liberals accuse conservatives of doing exactly what they do, or plan on doing soon. (Such as their accusations of "uncivil" remarks from conservatives.) Today, Obama waved a newspaper and stated that the Republicans oppose his so-called jobs bill because it is to their political advantage, without regard to the damage to the country of not going along with his latest scheme. In actuality, it would seem to me very politically courageous to oppose Obama's proposal to hand out more stimulus money. For conservatives, who believe that less government intervention in the economy will ultimately bring the best results, it could be political suicide to advocate abandonment of bailouts and other government largess.
On the other hand, it may not be difficult to make the point that the "jobs bill" would not save any jobs, and is intended primarily to save Obama's job. He asks that our congressional representatives pass the bill right away, presumably before they have time to read it, just as they passed the other masterpieces of the Harry Reid bill writing factory. Those bills are never what we are told they are. We have to pass the bill "to see what is in it," as Nancy Pelosi tells us. (For instance, we just learned that if congress does not adopt the suggestions of the super-committee of bipartisan spending cutters, we will automatically get cuts to the military and cuts to what medical providers are paid by medicare. It was advertised that there would be cuts to medicare but it was not explained how the cuts would come about. Doctor fees are already cut to the bone.) No telling what will be lurking in the hundreds of pages of the latest Obamination.
What does seem obvious is that the new bill is the same as the old bill. It is a way of looting the treasury and giving the proceeds to his constituents, i.e. to serve Obama's political ends. The primary constituents to be rewarded are, as usual, the unions, especially government unions. There was little or no economic stimulant effect the first time. The Austrian school of free market economics, as well as the Gods of the Copybook Headings, would explain that only the free market can allocate recourse's to fill our most urgent needs. Government intervention only makes things worse with unintended consequences. Bailing out state government workers, for instance, only prolongs the problem of wages and benefits being too high. A 5% cut in government salaries would be a better way to avoid government layoffs. Longterm changes in government pension systems also are needed as soon as possible.
Glenn Beck had a guess the speech segment this morning. He played cuts from Obama's speech advancing the 2009 stimulus bill and his speech the other day pushing the "jobs bill'" You had to guess which speech was which. The only difference that I heard was the new strident, almost threatening tones of the president. He seemed to be ordering congress to pass this latest bill. I guess he was desperate, and ought to be.
Showing posts with label intervention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intervention. Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Unlikely Saviors of Capitalism and the Nation
Tonight Washington State Senatorial candidates Pattie Murray (D) and Dino Rossi (R) debated. Mr. Rossi has a record in the Washington State Legislature of cost cutting to balance the budget. Senator Murray has a voting record in the US Senate making her the most liberal member of that body. She is running away from that record to a certain extent while also reminding voters of government money that she brought to the state. Dino reminded us of the practice in congress that our representatives use to get support for spending in their state. They vote for projects in other states in exchange. Dino Rossi is no RINO (Republican in Name only), but neither is he a Tea Partier. He seemed to be lack-luster in his early TV spots denouncing the Obama policies. He seems to be only half-heartedly against Cap-and-Trade, if he is against it at all. Nevertheless, his vote will be 90% conservative as apposed to Murray's 99% in favor of BHO and Majority Leader Harry Reid's agenda. Several other House and Senate races involve similar match ups. The Republicans and the nation need to win a majority of those races.
The conservative view is that economic difficulties stem from government intervention in the economy. Rossi gives this view lip service. Senator Murray does not seem to even understand the concept. Our current national economic problems were caused not only by decades of government actions but specifically by laws requiring banks to loan to bad credit risks. Because Freddy and Fanny were buying most of these loans from the banks, the banks were not too worried. The government was implicitly promising a bail-out if needed, and it was needed. All kinds of other bail-outs and government 'stimulus' spending followed. Those government actions are what is causing the current economic slow-down. It will turn into economic collapse unless we change course immediately.
BHO and his allies in congress have taken over the domestic auto industry, except for Ford Motor Company. They have taken over the biggest insurance company directly, and through the health care law, have taken over all of the health insurance industry. They have directly taken over many banks and investment companies and through the Wall Street 'Reform' bill, have effectively taken over all of the rest of that industry. In the Health Care bill there were provisions to take over more aspects of the economy, student loans, for instance. The laws granting bail-outs to state teachers and other government employees, have taken more control from the states over these employees. Many, many, laws and obscure provisions hidden in the massive Wall Street and Health Care monstrosities, set up new government agencies to control the people even more. Now, with Cap-and-Trade, they plan on controlling energy production, use, and distribution. Those industries are already highly regulated. To help them gain and keep control over the people, they want even more control over the Internet and talk radio. Since they already have control of the mainstream TV and print media, they will gain virtual complete say over what we, the people, are told to believe.
These massive government actions, most of which are for political not economic purposed, will not help the economy. In fact they are causing many problems that continue to get worse. As stated here and elsewhere, prices must lower and bankrupt concerns must be liquidated for markets to return to normal functioning. That is not happening. Government is creating money and debt at breakneck speed to shore-up housing prices, wages, and many industries (such as banking). This is postponing the inevitable and making the inevitable worse. Even if Republicans were to gain control in congress, there would likely be a long uphill climb.
Regarding Senate races, after the debacle of Reid's performance in his debate with Sharon Angle today, his chances of retaining his seat declined dramatically.
The conservative view is that economic difficulties stem from government intervention in the economy. Rossi gives this view lip service. Senator Murray does not seem to even understand the concept. Our current national economic problems were caused not only by decades of government actions but specifically by laws requiring banks to loan to bad credit risks. Because Freddy and Fanny were buying most of these loans from the banks, the banks were not too worried. The government was implicitly promising a bail-out if needed, and it was needed. All kinds of other bail-outs and government 'stimulus' spending followed. Those government actions are what is causing the current economic slow-down. It will turn into economic collapse unless we change course immediately.
BHO and his allies in congress have taken over the domestic auto industry, except for Ford Motor Company. They have taken over the biggest insurance company directly, and through the health care law, have taken over all of the health insurance industry. They have directly taken over many banks and investment companies and through the Wall Street 'Reform' bill, have effectively taken over all of the rest of that industry. In the Health Care bill there were provisions to take over more aspects of the economy, student loans, for instance. The laws granting bail-outs to state teachers and other government employees, have taken more control from the states over these employees. Many, many, laws and obscure provisions hidden in the massive Wall Street and Health Care monstrosities, set up new government agencies to control the people even more. Now, with Cap-and-Trade, they plan on controlling energy production, use, and distribution. Those industries are already highly regulated. To help them gain and keep control over the people, they want even more control over the Internet and talk radio. Since they already have control of the mainstream TV and print media, they will gain virtual complete say over what we, the people, are told to believe.
These massive government actions, most of which are for political not economic purposed, will not help the economy. In fact they are causing many problems that continue to get worse. As stated here and elsewhere, prices must lower and bankrupt concerns must be liquidated for markets to return to normal functioning. That is not happening. Government is creating money and debt at breakneck speed to shore-up housing prices, wages, and many industries (such as banking). This is postponing the inevitable and making the inevitable worse. Even if Republicans were to gain control in congress, there would likely be a long uphill climb.
Regarding Senate races, after the debacle of Reid's performance in his debate with Sharon Angle today, his chances of retaining his seat declined dramatically.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Economics of Unemployment Benefits
It is a truism of economics that unemployment is caused by wages being too high. How can that be? Simple: government intervention. Unemployment benefits are only one form of government intervention that prop up wages. Government hiring for work projects is another. We are doing both of these now. Most attempts at regulation in that area distort the market for labor. Labor laws that make it difficult and costly to dismiss workers once hired is a disincentive for business to hire. Uneven labor laws often give business only the option to cave in to union demands or go out of business -- negotiating at the point of a gun as they say. These laws are enacted to support union workers but actually hurt them and other workers. Due to higher labor costs, the level of production is decreased. Therefore, not only are fewer union workers hired, but nonunion hiring is diminished due to lower overall production.
Adjustments of price is the mechanism that allows markets to clear. In order for markets for labor or anything to clear, prices must adjust downward until a buyer comes forward. Labor prices, i. e. wages, are notoriously sticky downward. This is because of reasons outlined above and because of similar government intervention policies.
These are simple and basic economics principles. Even socialist economist, for the most part, agree. The difference is that champions of the free market want market principles to prevail so that we can have sustainable economic functioning and growth. Socialists want to intervene to 'correct' the market. They also favor certain groups to enhance their political power so they can implement more intervention policies. The progressive believes that policies of more and more government intervention will lead to continuing improvement in people's lives. The actual outcome of their policies is increasingly depressed levels of employment and production. Progressives' only remedy is to increase government intervention. This has always led to still worsening conditions. There seems to be no limit to their interventionist economic ideas. They have all proved to be destructive. Ultimately complete or nearly complete loss of liberty can be the only outcome. We have Cuba and North Korea as leading examples.
Unemployment benefits lasting over two years are currently a major impediment to lower wages. (This is obvious, but to state the obvious, many will not want employment if they are paid benefits, which in addition to the value they put on their free time, exceed the amount being offered. Therefore, employers have to offer more to purchase labor.) Employment benefits should be limited and the amounts paid should gradually diminish. Now is the time for choosing freedom and prosperity, not slavery and impoverishment.
Adjustments of price is the mechanism that allows markets to clear. In order for markets for labor or anything to clear, prices must adjust downward until a buyer comes forward. Labor prices, i. e. wages, are notoriously sticky downward. This is because of reasons outlined above and because of similar government intervention policies.
These are simple and basic economics principles. Even socialist economist, for the most part, agree. The difference is that champions of the free market want market principles to prevail so that we can have sustainable economic functioning and growth. Socialists want to intervene to 'correct' the market. They also favor certain groups to enhance their political power so they can implement more intervention policies. The progressive believes that policies of more and more government intervention will lead to continuing improvement in people's lives. The actual outcome of their policies is increasingly depressed levels of employment and production. Progressives' only remedy is to increase government intervention. This has always led to still worsening conditions. There seems to be no limit to their interventionist economic ideas. They have all proved to be destructive. Ultimately complete or nearly complete loss of liberty can be the only outcome. We have Cuba and North Korea as leading examples.
Unemployment benefits lasting over two years are currently a major impediment to lower wages. (This is obvious, but to state the obvious, many will not want employment if they are paid benefits, which in addition to the value they put on their free time, exceed the amount being offered. Therefore, employers have to offer more to purchase labor.) Employment benefits should be limited and the amounts paid should gradually diminish. Now is the time for choosing freedom and prosperity, not slavery and impoverishment.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Coast to Coast Does not Quite Get It
I usually spend the weekend working outside, visiting friends, or running around dong the things that I do not have time for all week. By 9:00 or so I usually am home trying to get caught up on indoor chores. Inevitably, I turn the radio on. I do not watch television because it requires your complete attention. You can't do anything else. Usually I listen to to Coast to Coast AM with George Noori, who took over for Art Bell. As much as I disagree with the politics and economics of most guests, another guest always comes along to balance it out.
What they do not have, which is a shortcoming common to most news and commentary forums, is a true free market, libertarian, Austrian economic outlook. They do take cognizance of their existence but only long enough to mischaracterize and thereby dismiss their ideas. For instance tonight, Mr. Noori and the guest, author of "The Looting of America," talk about Ayan Rand. They decide that she and her like believe in "enlightened self interest." They define this as the belief that by seeking what is best for ourselves, we will serve society as a whole. Unfortunately, they say, this has not worked. They of course are ignoring for the most part the place for charity but this is only the trivial case. The more important issue they do not understand is the importance of distortions by government involvement.
This is exactly the error of progressives. Progressives create a vast regulatory structure in order to steer business in such a way that they will have an incentive to help society in general, as a by-product or directly by their profit seeking activity. This is doomed to failure. Finance, the most regulated business, follows the rules that government regulators set up. Within the framework, they find a way to make more money that the progressive like so the progressives say they are gaming the system. This is also a trivial aspects of what happens. More at the core is the implied government guarantee when they business follow the rules, against their better judgment. For example, when banks made government encouraged, sponsored, or even mandated risky loans, they were expecting some type of government bailout and playbacks. Financial engineers figured out how to make money on risky loans that government had encouraged them to do.
When things go wrong, as the schemes of the progressives eventually do, business is blamed and more regulations are enacted. There is always a new recipe to fix things. Very often, as now, capitalism itself is blamed. Mr. Noori favors a "moral capitalism." He has good instincts but is no match against the progressive plans. Progressives will never acknowledge that it is the regulation itself that leads to the problem. Business can never make a big mess on it own. The cooperation of or forcible intervention by government is needed to really screw things up.
Unfortunately, the guest on Coast to Coast tonight is essentially a progressive soldier. He is attacking banks and Wall Street, not to have a discussion on developing a theory of government and finance interface. His mission is to help get a regulatory bill past by this congress. In this he joins virtually all of the press. With BHO and his operatives pulling the strings, any bill passed now will be a virtual take over of the financial functions by the government.
What they do not have, which is a shortcoming common to most news and commentary forums, is a true free market, libertarian, Austrian economic outlook. They do take cognizance of their existence but only long enough to mischaracterize and thereby dismiss their ideas. For instance tonight, Mr. Noori and the guest, author of "The Looting of America," talk about Ayan Rand. They decide that she and her like believe in "enlightened self interest." They define this as the belief that by seeking what is best for ourselves, we will serve society as a whole. Unfortunately, they say, this has not worked. They of course are ignoring for the most part the place for charity but this is only the trivial case. The more important issue they do not understand is the importance of distortions by government involvement.
This is exactly the error of progressives. Progressives create a vast regulatory structure in order to steer business in such a way that they will have an incentive to help society in general, as a by-product or directly by their profit seeking activity. This is doomed to failure. Finance, the most regulated business, follows the rules that government regulators set up. Within the framework, they find a way to make more money that the progressive like so the progressives say they are gaming the system. This is also a trivial aspects of what happens. More at the core is the implied government guarantee when they business follow the rules, against their better judgment. For example, when banks made government encouraged, sponsored, or even mandated risky loans, they were expecting some type of government bailout and playbacks. Financial engineers figured out how to make money on risky loans that government had encouraged them to do.
When things go wrong, as the schemes of the progressives eventually do, business is blamed and more regulations are enacted. There is always a new recipe to fix things. Very often, as now, capitalism itself is blamed. Mr. Noori favors a "moral capitalism." He has good instincts but is no match against the progressive plans. Progressives will never acknowledge that it is the regulation itself that leads to the problem. Business can never make a big mess on it own. The cooperation of or forcible intervention by government is needed to really screw things up.
Unfortunately, the guest on Coast to Coast tonight is essentially a progressive soldier. He is attacking banks and Wall Street, not to have a discussion on developing a theory of government and finance interface. His mission is to help get a regulatory bill past by this congress. In this he joins virtually all of the press. With BHO and his operatives pulling the strings, any bill passed now will be a virtual take over of the financial functions by the government.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
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
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
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Dubai Leads the Way
Dubai, which is essentially an independent city state in the United Arab Emirates is experiencing severe economic troubles. Why would that be? It is a beautiful place, in part because of the vast government and government related investment in infrastructure and other public building, including the creation of a whole new island. It's apparently hard to walk down the wide new sidewalks without bumping into a fabulous palace-like structure. Dubai is, after all, one of the fabulously rich oil nations on the Arabian Sea (or Persian Gulf if you prefer).
Maybe the vast 'investment' in infrastructure is part of the problem. Those fabulous palaces are apparently for the most part vacant. This situation is similar to the financial panic of 1837 in this country. Free market economists have blamed that on over investment in infrastructure. This had been spurred on by the inflation of the central bank before Andy Jackson was able to close it down. (He was the first one to abolish the Fed.) Like FDR, Barack Hussein Obama's economic theorizing says that 'investment' by the government in infrastructure and related projects is just what we need. Actually it is not what we need but I do not blame the president for not knowing the unknowable. That is why the market, without government intervention, is the only mechanism for deciding what needs to be produced to satisfy society's most urgent needs. If you do not understand that, I have a bridge to nowhere that you might be interested in.
Maybe the vast 'investment' in infrastructure is part of the problem. Those fabulous palaces are apparently for the most part vacant. This situation is similar to the financial panic of 1837 in this country. Free market economists have blamed that on over investment in infrastructure. This had been spurred on by the inflation of the central bank before Andy Jackson was able to close it down. (He was the first one to abolish the Fed.) Like FDR, Barack Hussein Obama's economic theorizing says that 'investment' by the government in infrastructure and related projects is just what we need. Actually it is not what we need but I do not blame the president for not knowing the unknowable. That is why the market, without government intervention, is the only mechanism for deciding what needs to be produced to satisfy society's most urgent needs. If you do not understand that, I have a bridge to nowhere that you might be interested in.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Only Good Health Bill Is a Dead Health Bill
The major media continues to the report that some Democrats have problems with the Health Care Bill before the Senate and they are working hard to resolve their differences. I also heard media blurbs that the Republicans are "concerned about cuts to medicare," or "think the bill will be a job killer." The major media also keeps playing Democrat Senator Harry Ried's comment that he has not yet heard of a single statement from Republicans indicating that they are willing to help with the bill. (This is because Republicans want sick people to die, don't you know.) Actually, Republicans have had many health care proposals, some of which were even adopted in the current House and Senate bills. The current bill however is unacceptable for many reasons, mostly because it affords the government too much control. Since government control is the essence of Democrat's long-held aspirations for health care 'reform,' it is obviously impossible for conscientious Republicans to support it.
I have heard even Fox Radio report the story this way in their top of the hour news segments. The press should report that the health bill is a creation of the Democrat Party, embodying many aspects of government control and totally devoid of free market mechanisms. As such, they need not pretend that there are just a few differences that need to be ironed.
I have heard even Fox Radio report the story this way in their top of the hour news segments. The press should report that the health bill is a creation of the Democrat Party, embodying many aspects of government control and totally devoid of free market mechanisms. As such, they need not pretend that there are just a few differences that need to be ironed.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thanksgiving: Time for Reflection and Best of on the Radio
Thanksgiving guests gave me the opportunity to keep up with liberal thought by listening to friends and relatives. My brother, who supported BHO because of the bonuses received by corporate CEO, now favors government healthcare. His reasoning is that he can get free healthcare if he quits his job or is laid off. He pointed out how the only construction going on is government projects and how his heating oil delivery job is slow because few are ordering oil for their home. I told him there is little private construction BECAUSE of all the government 'stimulus' spending. Economic resources (usually referred to as Land. Labor, and Capital) are all going to the government. The government, with its money printing press, can always outbid the private sector, especially in economic slowdowns. We need to let prices adjust (mostly downward) for there to be economic recovery. BHO is trying to reinflate the bubble. This has never worked but that does not stop BHO from trying. But yes he can't.
With socialized medicine, I have tried to tell him there's no free lunch. If we cannot individually afford healthcare, how can we afford it collectively. It will turn out as the case of the store door-greeter who gets minimum wage. He is so glad when he hears that the minimum wage is being raised. As soon as it becomes law, he can't understand why the store tells him they don't need a door-greeter anymore. The lesson: you never get what the government promises. Government programs are like the devil's empty promises. They lead us from the true path and never provide what they promise. Again we not only have economic theory to guide us but we also have recent history. Socialism never works and trying again will give us the same disastrous results.
I have already said all this in earlier posts. Another feature of the holidays is that the radio talk show often have 'Best Of' programs. Mark Levin again recaped his report on the four government actions that caused the mortgage/banking collapse last year. He recps the various laws passed, the government agencies empowered, the corruption and growth of government involvement. He makes an excellent case. The Democrat response to these facts is 1) ignore, 2) talking point: not a significant factor because: -------- (fill in the lie). 3) it was cooperate greed, or 4) Ha Ha, there was plenty of blame to go around... followed by solution: MORE government involvement. So typical and of course supported by the lame stream press (as Sarah Palin calls the GCP).
I thought that the latest banking crisis was caused by the government. This was confirmed, I thought, when it came out the Freddy Mac and Fannie May owned or controlled over half of the country's mortgages. I thought that it was obvious for even the biggest ignoramus to understand when the talk shows played multiple speeches of President Bush, John McCain, and other Republicans warning of the pending problems with Freddy and Fanny. They then played the tape of Senator Dodd and other Democrats arguing that it was no problem. The Problem to anyone with eyes to see: BHO, Nancy Pulosi, Harry Ried, Christopher Dodd, Chucky Schumer, and the interventionist policies of the current democrat party.
With socialized medicine, I have tried to tell him there's no free lunch. If we cannot individually afford healthcare, how can we afford it collectively. It will turn out as the case of the store door-greeter who gets minimum wage. He is so glad when he hears that the minimum wage is being raised. As soon as it becomes law, he can't understand why the store tells him they don't need a door-greeter anymore. The lesson: you never get what the government promises. Government programs are like the devil's empty promises. They lead us from the true path and never provide what they promise. Again we not only have economic theory to guide us but we also have recent history. Socialism never works and trying again will give us the same disastrous results.
I have already said all this in earlier posts. Another feature of the holidays is that the radio talk show often have 'Best Of' programs. Mark Levin again recaped his report on the four government actions that caused the mortgage/banking collapse last year. He recps the various laws passed, the government agencies empowered, the corruption and growth of government involvement. He makes an excellent case. The Democrat response to these facts is 1) ignore, 2) talking point: not a significant factor because: -------- (fill in the lie). 3) it was cooperate greed, or 4) Ha Ha, there was plenty of blame to go around... followed by solution: MORE government involvement. So typical and of course supported by the lame stream press (as Sarah Palin calls the GCP).
I thought that the latest banking crisis was caused by the government. This was confirmed, I thought, when it came out the Freddy Mac and Fannie May owned or controlled over half of the country's mortgages. I thought that it was obvious for even the biggest ignoramus to understand when the talk shows played multiple speeches of President Bush, John McCain, and other Republicans warning of the pending problems with Freddy and Fanny. They then played the tape of Senator Dodd and other Democrats arguing that it was no problem. The Problem to anyone with eyes to see: BHO, Nancy Pulosi, Harry Ried, Christopher Dodd, Chucky Schumer, and the interventionist policies of the current democrat party.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Still Marching twoard Totalitarianism
I haven't added many new posts lately. There are several reasons for this, mostly because I have already commented on what was happening and much the same continues to happen. I could attempt to discuss matters more in depth, such as explaining theoretically, why communism is bad. This has been done. Unfortunately, BHO and his followers seem to want what is bad for us if it will enhance their power, so why waste my breath?
Regarding the attempted coup by the president of Honduras, it appears that he has temporarily flaunted his nation's laws and gets a second bite of the apple. He is a want-to-be dictator who may soon be installed by the United States. (Something that the left used to dislike until a communist came into power, here and there.) The Hondurans are trying desperately to remain free, in spite of U.S. threats and sanctions. The US press also supported the BHO intervention in Honduran affairs. See my earlier post regarding Zelay's attempted coup, posted July 4. (I note that the same thing happened in Niger, which may have given Manuel Zelay the idea. - We did object to Mamadou Tandja in Niger, but he went ahead anyway. His third, unconstitutional, term starts next month. He dismissed parliament and the high court to stay in power. What does BHO do if his man does that too? Why don't we intervene there? Does BHO like that gangster too? Niger is the second largest uranium producer and may have oil. Remember the yellow cake? That's what Saddam's trade envoy went there for not the oil.)
The political situation here continues about the same: more and more unconstitutional powers usurped by all three branches. There is a dribble of defections in the GCP (Government Controlled Press). The major government organs actually did refuse to attend a press conference from which Fox News was was excluded. The RINOs are also slipping. The New Jersey Republican, who had been endorsed by ACORN, has withdrawn from the congressional special election in favor of the third party conservative, who was endorsed by Her Excellency, Sarah Palin.
Domestic economic affairs continue on their dismal trajectory to a $20 trillion debt. More Deficit spending along with low interest rates got us into the current mess and BHO seems to have no remedy but the hair of the dog that bit us. A new best seller, The Conscience of a Libertarian, spells it out well. While your at it, The Conscience of a Conservative, by Barry Goldwater, is pretty good too. We are still trying to spend our way to prosperity and reflate a popped balloon. Yes we can't.
In addition to not having a whole lot more to say, I am also busy with my new hobby of stamp collecting. This is a good way to learn about history and geography. I will post some photos of Third Reich and USSR stamps that I find interesting. The only current fascist and communist party on the ascendancy, is the HBO cabal. The parallels are numerous and depressing.
(See Bill Cunningham and his small cadre of Renegades on facebook for a good time)
Honduran matter: Latest abut US supported attempted coup: 0http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703399204574508141774783168.html
Regarding the attempted coup by the president of Honduras, it appears that he has temporarily flaunted his nation's laws and gets a second bite of the apple. He is a want-to-be dictator who may soon be installed by the United States. (Something that the left used to dislike until a communist came into power, here and there.) The Hondurans are trying desperately to remain free, in spite of U.S. threats and sanctions. The US press also supported the BHO intervention in Honduran affairs. See my earlier post regarding Zelay's attempted coup, posted July 4. (I note that the same thing happened in Niger, which may have given Manuel Zelay the idea. - We did object to Mamadou Tandja in Niger, but he went ahead anyway. His third, unconstitutional, term starts next month. He dismissed parliament and the high court to stay in power. What does BHO do if his man does that too? Why don't we intervene there? Does BHO like that gangster too? Niger is the second largest uranium producer and may have oil. Remember the yellow cake? That's what Saddam's trade envoy went there for not the oil.)
The political situation here continues about the same: more and more unconstitutional powers usurped by all three branches. There is a dribble of defections in the GCP (Government Controlled Press). The major government organs actually did refuse to attend a press conference from which Fox News was was excluded. The RINOs are also slipping. The New Jersey Republican, who had been endorsed by ACORN, has withdrawn from the congressional special election in favor of the third party conservative, who was endorsed by Her Excellency, Sarah Palin.
Domestic economic affairs continue on their dismal trajectory to a $20 trillion debt. More Deficit spending along with low interest rates got us into the current mess and BHO seems to have no remedy but the hair of the dog that bit us. A new best seller, The Conscience of a Libertarian, spells it out well. While your at it, The Conscience of a Conservative, by Barry Goldwater, is pretty good too. We are still trying to spend our way to prosperity and reflate a popped balloon. Yes we can't.
In addition to not having a whole lot more to say, I am also busy with my new hobby of stamp collecting. This is a good way to learn about history and geography. I will post some photos of Third Reich and USSR stamps that I find interesting. The only current fascist and communist party on the ascendancy, is the HBO cabal. The parallels are numerous and depressing.
(See Bill Cunningham and his small cadre of Renegades on facebook for a good time)
Honduran matter: Latest abut US supported attempted coup: 0http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703399204574508141774783168.html
Monday, October 26, 2009
Hidden Inflation
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."
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."
Saturday, September 19, 2009
New Target for Hate and Takeover: Wall Street
A method of the revolutionary left seems to be to accuse conservatives and Republicans of some imaginary wrong, then some time later, they actually do what they had accused the conservatives of doing. Then when they are confronted, their defence essentially is: Bush did it first. Aside from being intellectually repugnant on several levels, this is generally a lie. Is it that we are so jaded by hearing the fraudulent complaints of the left, that like Pontus Pilot, we ask, "what is Truth?"
We have heard for the last eight years all kinds of bizarre accusations directed against the Republicans of how they are attempting to control the population by imposing their Farwellian, fundamentalist morality. Aside from the fact that Christianity has retreated so far, that we are at last putting up a feeble defense of the last two or three percent of our former territory, I would say, "who cares?" I do not see our freedoms currently under any serious threat from the Christian right. On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see and with the slightest sense should realize that the left, under President Barack Husein Obama [BHO] with the aid of the leftest congress and liberal press, are currently a great threat to our liberties.
BHO's attack on Wall Street is the latest attempt to gain more power over the institution of this nation. It should be clear, based upon recent similar tactics, that the anti-Wall Street propaganda coming directly from BHO is the harbinger of another take-over attempt. I hope he is stopped. Unfortunately, the public hears only one side. They know about the excesses of Wall Street executives and they have heard over and over that they are the sole culprits responsible for the present and all other economic downturns. On the contrary, government economic intervention itself has been and remains the main culprit. Capitalism, the free market, and our complicated financial system has been responsible for the greatest advances in the history of humanity. Its abundant shortfalls, as aforesaid, are chiefly the fault of government intervention.
There are also dishonest people. We should be protected from them by the police powers of the government. Fraud is an ever present danger, which in fact could probably be avoided by the unimpeded functioning of a free market better that is is by the government. BHO's covetousness of the productive forces of this nation far exceeds the mere policing of sharp business practices. Unfortunately, the results of government failings in detection of fraud along with problems created by intervention in financial markets by government, is not even an issue under discussion. Instead, big business and industry along with their needed financial system are blamed for all our ills and are currently under threat of destruction from BHO. This is madness and chickenshit of the highest order.
We have heard for the last eight years all kinds of bizarre accusations directed against the Republicans of how they are attempting to control the population by imposing their Farwellian, fundamentalist morality. Aside from the fact that Christianity has retreated so far, that we are at last putting up a feeble defense of the last two or three percent of our former territory, I would say, "who cares?" I do not see our freedoms currently under any serious threat from the Christian right. On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see and with the slightest sense should realize that the left, under President Barack Husein Obama [BHO] with the aid of the leftest congress and liberal press, are currently a great threat to our liberties.
BHO's attack on Wall Street is the latest attempt to gain more power over the institution of this nation. It should be clear, based upon recent similar tactics, that the anti-Wall Street propaganda coming directly from BHO is the harbinger of another take-over attempt. I hope he is stopped. Unfortunately, the public hears only one side. They know about the excesses of Wall Street executives and they have heard over and over that they are the sole culprits responsible for the present and all other economic downturns. On the contrary, government economic intervention itself has been and remains the main culprit. Capitalism, the free market, and our complicated financial system has been responsible for the greatest advances in the history of humanity. Its abundant shortfalls, as aforesaid, are chiefly the fault of government intervention.
There are also dishonest people. We should be protected from them by the police powers of the government. Fraud is an ever present danger, which in fact could probably be avoided by the unimpeded functioning of a free market better that is is by the government. BHO's covetousness of the productive forces of this nation far exceeds the mere policing of sharp business practices. Unfortunately, the results of government failings in detection of fraud along with problems created by intervention in financial markets by government, is not even an issue under discussion. Instead, big business and industry along with their needed financial system are blamed for all our ills and are currently under threat of destruction from BHO. This is madness and chickenshit of the highest order.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Next Bubble - Health Care?
It seems that too many resources are going to health care. I have heard numbers of around one-fifth of gross domestic product going to health care. Based upon recent construction projects that I have seen and a cursory review of web searches, there seem to be a lot of new hospitals and expansions of existing hospitals. This could just be the most visible aspect of medical care capacity expansion. Researching financial data to check this would not be difficult but it seems obvious. This could be in response to demand that is artificially enhanced by specific government stimulation along with monetary expansion. (The same as happened with housing.) Certainly the growth in government medical programs, tax incentives, and mandates on private health insurance are indications to business of accelerating market growth. Low interests rates thanks to the Fed have encouraged all kinds of capital projects. (This is the basis of the Austrian School theory of business cycles.)
However, web searches also reveal a lot of stalled projects due to lack of financing. Entrepreneurs are no doubt undercutting higher cost hospital based care. People are looking for alternatives and are foregoing nonurgent medical care. The turn down can be attributed to recession based fears and caution on the part of consumers. When things get tight, apparently medical care is not high on the list of what people see as necessities. The actual priority that people place upon their wants and needs eventually asserts itself. Housing was pumped up by government intervention and of course eventually fell. If not health care what could be next? Maybe education?
Only a free market can allocate resources to where they can best be used to satisfy our wants as we prioritize those wants. Government is not able to do this according to economic theory as born out by attempts at socialization. Time to try less government and more freedom maybe?
However, web searches also reveal a lot of stalled projects due to lack of financing. Entrepreneurs are no doubt undercutting higher cost hospital based care. People are looking for alternatives and are foregoing nonurgent medical care. The turn down can be attributed to recession based fears and caution on the part of consumers. When things get tight, apparently medical care is not high on the list of what people see as necessities. The actual priority that people place upon their wants and needs eventually asserts itself. Housing was pumped up by government intervention and of course eventually fell. If not health care what could be next? Maybe education?
Only a free market can allocate resources to where they can best be used to satisfy our wants as we prioritize those wants. Government is not able to do this according to economic theory as born out by attempts at socialization. Time to try less government and more freedom maybe?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Albert Jay Nock Up and Coming?
I predict that Albert Jay Nock will make a come back. That is his ideas and writings will, since he himself died in 1945. Some will say that his ideas never went anywhere; there are clubs and newsletters and probably blogs devoted to him. He was a journalist and author. The main thrust of his beliefs was that the state was the cause of all of our problems. He thought that complete economic freedom would lead to political and social and all other genres of freedom. (As opposed to socialist writers, who believed pretty much the opposite.) He said that the state claimed and practiced a monopoly on crime. Occasionally it would lull us into complacency by granting and guaranteeing a few "rights." Maybe four or five or ten. Actually, what we should have is no state and all rights and freedoms. This is certainly anarchy and he is indeed a hero of the anarchist movement. He would probably say that anarchy is a statist concept. Here is a link to a short article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker23.html
This is a Paragraph from the Wikopedia article:
"During the 1930s, Nock was one of the most consistent critics of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs. In Our Enemy, the State, Nock argued that the New Deal was merely a pretext for the federal government to increase its control over society. He was dismayed that the president had gathered unprecedented power in his own hands and called this development an out-and-out coup d'etat. Nock criticized those who believed that the new regimentation of the economy was temporary, arguing that it would prove a permanent shift. He believed that the inflationary monetary policy of the Republican administrations of the 1920s were responsible for the onset of the Great Depression, and that the New Deal was responsible for perpetuating it."
It is his insight regarding the Great Depression that might bring about his revival. It seems obvious that the above paragraph is a pretty good summary of our current economic situation.
Nock's writings about money, business cycles, and government spending almost mirror those of von Mises and other "liberals." I doubt Nock had an academic economic background but he was well schooled in the classics and self-educated in everything else. His writing about social security insurance could be used to help understand the current proposals for government health insurance:
"What such schemes actually come to is that the workman pays his own share outright; he pays the employer's share in the enhanced price of commodities; and he pays the government's share in taxation. He pays the whole bill; and when one counts in the unconscionably swollen costs of bureaucratic brokerage and paperasserie, one sees that what the workman-beneficiary gets out of the arrangement is about the most expensive form of insurance that could be devised consistently with keeping its promoters out of gaol."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker23.html
This is a Paragraph from the Wikopedia article:
"During the 1930s, Nock was one of the most consistent critics of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs. In Our Enemy, the State, Nock argued that the New Deal was merely a pretext for the federal government to increase its control over society. He was dismayed that the president had gathered unprecedented power in his own hands and called this development an out-and-out coup d'etat. Nock criticized those who believed that the new regimentation of the economy was temporary, arguing that it would prove a permanent shift. He believed that the inflationary monetary policy of the Republican administrations of the 1920s were responsible for the onset of the Great Depression, and that the New Deal was responsible for perpetuating it."
It is his insight regarding the Great Depression that might bring about his revival. It seems obvious that the above paragraph is a pretty good summary of our current economic situation.
Nock's writings about money, business cycles, and government spending almost mirror those of von Mises and other "liberals." I doubt Nock had an academic economic background but he was well schooled in the classics and self-educated in everything else. His writing about social security insurance could be used to help understand the current proposals for government health insurance:
"What such schemes actually come to is that the workman pays his own share outright; he pays the employer's share in the enhanced price of commodities; and he pays the government's share in taxation. He pays the whole bill; and when one counts in the unconscionably swollen costs of bureaucratic brokerage and paperasserie, one sees that what the workman-beneficiary gets out of the arrangement is about the most expensive form of insurance that could be devised consistently with keeping its promoters out of gaol."
He also predicted the rise of Obama-like figures (of which BHO was by no means the first):
"It certainly took no great perspicacity to see that these two measures [income tax and popular election of senators] would straightway ease our political systems into collectivism as soon as some Eubulus, some mass-man overgifted with sagacity, should maneuver himself into popular leadership; and in the nature of things, this would not be long."
Regarding patriotism, he said, "As a general principle, I should put it that a man's country is where the things he loves are most respected." Since he also said, "All I ever asked of life was the freedom to think and say exactly what I pleased, when I pleased, and as I pleased. I have always had that freedom," I would say that America was his country. Let's hope we can keep it a place where freedom is most respected.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Jivin' Man Obama
Radio talk show callers a few weeks ago were suggesting songs to replace the Star Spangled Banner. This was in response to a columnist who thought that we had grown beyond Francis Scott Keyes' martial air. "I'm Sorry," it was decided would be a better replacement for "Hail to the Chief" than for the national anthem. It seemed to be fitting after some of President Obama's remarks made overseas. However, he is anything but apologetic while at home. Therefore I propose a song for the presidential theme that seems to have a more general application to his pronouncements and policies: "Jivin Man Blues." The only version I know of is Dave Van Ronk's on his "Sunday Street" album.
He was a jivin' man from his birth...
He jived every soul, he jived the mule named Maud
He was so game he jived the Cadillac squad
He had a habit of jivin' and that ain't all
With his lord, lord, lord, lord, lord.
He jived so much it was a mystery
He even jived the gang who made policy
He jived the whole creation and that ain't all
With his lord, lord, lord, lord, lord...
A sample of this song is available at Pandora Radio.
http://www.pandora.com/music/album/dave+van+ronk/sunday+street
On Pandora, you sign up for a free membership to hear songs in a given user defined genre. You can not play a specific song but can hear a short sample. This web site has a great data base. I have ordered several CD via their links to amazon and other places. You can also buy MP3 downloads.
Regarding BHO's jivin', I have listened very hard but still don't get it. He talks a lot about the problem and tells me who I should blame. Then he explains the great things he will achieve. They are the same great things that they had promised before and generally, the things all humanity wants and have always striven for, but now he can deliver. What I do not get is how exactly he intends to accomplish these great things.
I am becoming more and more convinced that what he and his central committee want is power and control. They do not particularly care about health care or global warming, these are only convenient vehicles for furthering their policy ends. They serve their purpose well because climate and sickness are things that never go away. There are so many variables that their solutions can never be shown to have failed. The problem was just bigger that they thought and would require even more intrusive intervention. BHO is the snake oil salesman who makes it all sound easy.
He was a jivin' man from his birth...
He jived every soul, he jived the mule named Maud
He was so game he jived the Cadillac squad
He had a habit of jivin' and that ain't all
With his lord, lord, lord, lord, lord.
He jived so much it was a mystery
He even jived the gang who made policy
He jived the whole creation and that ain't all
With his lord, lord, lord, lord, lord...
A sample of this song is available at Pandora Radio.
http://www.pandora.com/music/album/dave+van+ronk/sunday+street
On Pandora, you sign up for a free membership to hear songs in a given user defined genre. You can not play a specific song but can hear a short sample. This web site has a great data base. I have ordered several CD via their links to amazon and other places. You can also buy MP3 downloads.
Regarding BHO's jivin', I have listened very hard but still don't get it. He talks a lot about the problem and tells me who I should blame. Then he explains the great things he will achieve. They are the same great things that they had promised before and generally, the things all humanity wants and have always striven for, but now he can deliver. What I do not get is how exactly he intends to accomplish these great things.
I am becoming more and more convinced that what he and his central committee want is power and control. They do not particularly care about health care or global warming, these are only convenient vehicles for furthering their policy ends. They serve their purpose well because climate and sickness are things that never go away. There are so many variables that their solutions can never be shown to have failed. The problem was just bigger that they thought and would require even more intrusive intervention. BHO is the snake oil salesman who makes it all sound easy.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Mixed-Up Economy: We are All Bloodsuckers Now
John Maynard Keynes was an intellectual descendant of Karl Marx not of Adam Smith or David Ricardo. The policies he advocated lead, sometimes little by little and sometimes by leaps and bounds, to socialism. Socialism, once achieved, must ultimately fail and leads to the breakdown of society (via the breakdown of the division of labor, as Professor von Mises has explained). From there, who knows: military dictators, back to feudal warring states or tribes or...?
Paul Samuelson was a recent leading Keynesian, who gained prominence by writing the college economics text book that was most in fashion during the 1970's and '80's. Currently we have Nobel prize winning economist and NY Times columnist, Paul Krugman to carry the Keynesian flag. There have been and are many others, they advance the cause of socialism. (Even Richard Nixon made the famous remark, "We are all Keynesians now." He didn't know any better apparently or he was sharing the blame for his deficit spending.)
One of the many faults of Lord Keynes, was that his theories justified government deficit spending. Deficits have a few problems, the biggest being perhaps that they allows greater government intervention in the economy (not to mention inflation). Samuelson explained methods of determining the proper values of various economic parameters and how government could fiddle around to obtain the optimum results. For example, the government needs to and is able to, through taxing and spending, achieve "full employment." Now, by applying Keynes and Samuelson's methods, Mr. Krugman says that BHO's stimulus deficit spending is great, just not enough. (Mr. Krugman also advocates more regulation, which is another story.)
I have linked to a better explanation of these foolish theories that I could ever provide:
http://mises.org/story/3608
Economics of Oblivion; Mises Daily by George Koether
A few quotes: "Laissez-faire is dead, long live the "mixed economy!" Unfortunately it is often difficult to tell which is more mixed, the economy or the professors. They try their best to seem as sincerely opposed to "complete" socialism as they are obviously cocksure rugged individualism is gone forever. Their "mixed economy" seems to be a course midway between capitalism and socialism, with careful avoidance of the "bad" in each.
The difficulties they encounter in trying to steer between the Scylla of socialism and the Charybdis of capitalism would be amusing if the implications were not so tragic."
...
"Wrong again. Economics does have great exactitude, but it is a qualitative, not a quantitative exactitude. The economist cannot know the number or size of all the cakes in the world, or when they will be eaten, but he is dead certain that whoever eats his cake no longer has it.
That is more than the Keynesians seem to know. Their theory implies you cannot have your cake until you do eat it. You can spend your way into prosperity. The formulas say so."
...
"This "new economics" is neither new nor economics. Instead, it is a concatenation of statistics, mathematics and social philosophy used in support of the age-old sophistries of government inflationism."
A quote from John Maynard Keynes, revealing what his true wishes were regarding the socialist state: "[T]he sharp distinction, approved by custom and convention during the past two centuries, between the property and rights of a State and the property and rights of its nationals is an artificial one, which is being rapidly put out of date … and is inappropriate to modern socialistic conceptions of the relations between the State and its citizens"- Cf. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York, 1920), p. 71 (quoted in above article.)
According to the author, George Koether, these teaching, because they offer an easy way to prosperity (and for politicians to reward their voters and special interests supporters) have driven out more sensible economic thinking, as debased coinage will drive out the true gold.
Do you renounce BHO and all his empty promises?
Paul Samuelson was a recent leading Keynesian, who gained prominence by writing the college economics text book that was most in fashion during the 1970's and '80's. Currently we have Nobel prize winning economist and NY Times columnist, Paul Krugman to carry the Keynesian flag. There have been and are many others, they advance the cause of socialism. (Even Richard Nixon made the famous remark, "We are all Keynesians now." He didn't know any better apparently or he was sharing the blame for his deficit spending.)
One of the many faults of Lord Keynes, was that his theories justified government deficit spending. Deficits have a few problems, the biggest being perhaps that they allows greater government intervention in the economy (not to mention inflation). Samuelson explained methods of determining the proper values of various economic parameters and how government could fiddle around to obtain the optimum results. For example, the government needs to and is able to, through taxing and spending, achieve "full employment." Now, by applying Keynes and Samuelson's methods, Mr. Krugman says that BHO's stimulus deficit spending is great, just not enough. (Mr. Krugman also advocates more regulation, which is another story.)
I have linked to a better explanation of these foolish theories that I could ever provide:
http://mises.org/story/3608
Economics of Oblivion; Mises Daily by George Koether
A few quotes: "Laissez-faire is dead, long live the "mixed economy!" Unfortunately it is often difficult to tell which is more mixed, the economy or the professors. They try their best to seem as sincerely opposed to "complete" socialism as they are obviously cocksure rugged individualism is gone forever. Their "mixed economy" seems to be a course midway between capitalism and socialism, with careful avoidance of the "bad" in each.
The difficulties they encounter in trying to steer between the Scylla of socialism and the Charybdis of capitalism would be amusing if the implications were not so tragic."
...
"Wrong again. Economics does have great exactitude, but it is a qualitative, not a quantitative exactitude. The economist cannot know the number or size of all the cakes in the world, or when they will be eaten, but he is dead certain that whoever eats his cake no longer has it.
That is more than the Keynesians seem to know. Their theory implies you cannot have your cake until you do eat it. You can spend your way into prosperity. The formulas say so."
...
"This "new economics" is neither new nor economics. Instead, it is a concatenation of statistics, mathematics and social philosophy used in support of the age-old sophistries of government inflationism."
A quote from John Maynard Keynes, revealing what his true wishes were regarding the socialist state: "[T]he sharp distinction, approved by custom and convention during the past two centuries, between the property and rights of a State and the property and rights of its nationals is an artificial one, which is being rapidly put out of date … and is inappropriate to modern socialistic conceptions of the relations between the State and its citizens"- Cf. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York, 1920), p. 71 (quoted in above article.)
According to the author, George Koether, these teaching, because they offer an easy way to prosperity (and for politicians to reward their voters and special interests supporters) have driven out more sensible economic thinking, as debased coinage will drive out the true gold.
Do you renounce BHO and all his empty promises?
Free Trade: No Stimulus Please
The following quotation and link to an article by William Graham Sumner refers to free international trade as opposed to trade barriers such as tariffs. He also talks about other modes of government intervention and the principals discussed apply to any government intervention aimed at helping a particular party to obtain a better position in the market place. This could refer to government aid for the biggest industrial corporations or for workers in a given trade. His clearly stated view is that any government aid meant to stimulate one enterprise, hurts others, the national economy as a whole, and eventually the favored enterprise itself:
"The free trader further holds that protection is all a mistake and delusion to those who think that they win by it, in that it lessens their self-reliance and energy and exposes their business to vicissitudes that, not being incident to a natural order of things, cannot be foreseen and guarded against by business skill; also that it throws the business into a condition in which it is exposed to a series of heats and chills, and finally, unless a new stimulus is applied, reduced to a state of dull decay. They therefore hold that even the protected would be far better off without it." -- William Graham Sumner; from the essay "What is Free Trade," first published in The Forgotten Man and Other Essays (1918). http://mises.org/story/3604
"The free trader further holds that protection is all a mistake and delusion to those who think that they win by it, in that it lessens their self-reliance and energy and exposes their business to vicissitudes that, not being incident to a natural order of things, cannot be foreseen and guarded against by business skill; also that it throws the business into a condition in which it is exposed to a series of heats and chills, and finally, unless a new stimulus is applied, reduced to a state of dull decay. They therefore hold that even the protected would be far better off without it." -- William Graham Sumner; from the essay "What is Free Trade," first published in The Forgotten Man and Other Essays (1918). http://mises.org/story/3604
Sunday, June 28, 2009
TB Pickens: Man with a Plan for Us
T. Boone Pickens has a plan, which he discussed on "Coast to Coast." He states the plan in generalities. It involves a lot of good things that he says we will get and bad things we can avoid by supporting him and his plan.
Sounds like Al Gore to me. Personally, I like a simple statement of a simple plan. Apparently he has made some sort of a "non-aggression" pact with Harry Ried. I guess that means Pickens will not speak out against cap-and-trade. What does he get in return? He thinks he get natural gas development I guess. If his plan involves more natural gas development, that part would be great. Apparently Mr. Pickens wants the coercive powers of the state to force natural gas on industries whether they want it or not. If that's the plan, I see why he isn't telling us. If he's from Texas, why doesn't he talk straight? I smell chicken shit.
Sounds like Al Gore to me. Personally, I like a simple statement of a simple plan. Apparently he has made some sort of a "non-aggression" pact with Harry Ried. I guess that means Pickens will not speak out against cap-and-trade. What does he get in return? He thinks he get natural gas development I guess. If his plan involves more natural gas development, that part would be great. Apparently Mr. Pickens wants the coercive powers of the state to force natural gas on industries whether they want it or not. If that's the plan, I see why he isn't telling us. If he's from Texas, why doesn't he talk straight? I smell chicken shit.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Economic Freedom
“Special interests…can think of the most ingenious reasons why they should be the objects of special solicitude. Their spokesmen present a plan in their favor; and it seems at first so absurd that disinterested writers do not trouble to expose it.” So begins Chapter 13 of Henry Hazlitt’s 1946 book, Economics in One Lesson. He was speaking of the folly of the New Deal agricultural price fixing scheme which FDR wanted and got. This chapter is an informative example of how government meddling causes all kinds of problems that need to be fixed by further meddling. Each step along the way impoverished the farmers and consumers who it was suppose to help and took away personal choice and liberty.
When will they ever learn? Apparently the current administration learned a lot about how demagogues (those who gain control by playing on public fears) can maneuver into positions of power and profit. The chief instrumentality is a gullible and/or duplicitous press. Our times have become very interesting for those who are interested in economics theories. For years “free market fringe economists" have been explaining how a demagogue or a party apparatus can take control. They explained how propaganda is the main tool. Promises of great prosperity at the cost of a little freedom only lead to less prosperity followed by more loss of freedom. I thought they were talking about South American dictatorships or European fascists. It is interesting to see it now play out with only the thinnest of disguise.
Henry Hazlitt’s book gives several examples and works out the logical consequences of government intervention in the economy. It was meant to be and is an introduction to how economics works. This is simple stuff that many politicians don’t want you to know. This has really never been widely debated because one side in the debate controls the forum of any debate. Mr. Hazlitt’s books are for sale at the regular on-line outlets and at some bookstores. The Ludwig von Mises Institute specializes in that sort of book.
(Professor von Mises, The Last Knight of Freedom, escaped from Austria just before the Nazi take-over and taught and wrote in this country. His work systematizes the school of thought known as the Austrian School. He shows over and over in his work that only economic freedom can make us politically free and prosperous.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)