Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Good and Bad New Bills Proposed
The above video asserts:
-HR 6145 and S 3791 introduced by Tom Coburn would require Congressmen to pay their taxes. S 3790, introduced by Tom Coburn, would make people who do not pay their taxes ineligible for federal employment. It would kick Tim Geithner out of his job.
-S 510 introduce by Dick Durbin is a sneaky way to introduce world government. S 3628, introduced by Chuck Schumer, would prohibit government contractors and foreign government is an attempt to silence freedom oriented activists.
-HR 6134 would provide for a 10% reduction of pay for Congressmen and to reduce labor costs of Congress.
It is not clear which of these bills is likely to pass. But rather than watch television news, a better use of your time would be to contact your Congressman and give him or her your opinion on these bills.
If You Are Profiting from Wall Street's Current Merger Boom, Then the US Government Works for You
The Democrats claim to be the party of the poor, but if you have been following my blog you know that is pap. Since November 2008 the economy has done poorly for the average American. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment is 9.6 percent. Americans on Social Security saw no increase but local taxes increased, leaving them short. Inflation, at 1.1 percent, has been modest, but people are beginning to suspect inaccuracies in the BLS numbers. I hear complaints about food prices' going up. In any case, there is no reason to think that anything will reduce the unemployment rate in the near future.
Thus, the stimulus and the bailout have failed to produce significant results. This is not surprising. Keynesian policies failed during the Great Depression as well. Pundits assert that as a result of the recent failure of the Bush-Obama policies (failure on paper, not in their intent, which is to help Wall Street, not to reduce unemployment), Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel have handed in their resignations.
One of the Bush-Obama strategies has been to massively expand the monetary base and the money supply. The argument for this policy is monetarist, and the monetarists don't differ much from Keynesians. Both believe that printing money can beneficially stabilize the economy. Neither accedes that the new money is a wealth transfer device to Wall Street.
Forbes reports that the wealthiest Americans have gotten wealthier this year. The wealthiest among them are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, both of whom are Democrats. According to the Los Angeles Times mergers and acquisitions are at an all time high. A guest on Bloomberg radio today was saying that Wall Street has never had a better year. Although this is never stated in the Wall Street-controlled media, Wall Street's economic flourishing depends entirely on the Federal Reserve Bank. It is not attributable to free markets and it is not capitalist.
The Wall Street investment banks and law firms are profiting handsomely due to the Fed's monetary creation and the Bush-Obama administration. The merger activity is directly due to the administration's new money. It has had no hand in reducing unemployment, in improving the economy or making the public better off. Rather, it serves to harm the economy by reducing competition and paying commissions to bankers and Wall Street lawyers for destroying rather than creating wealth.
If you have seen a commission check or have a salary that depends on the recent expansion of merger activity, the US government is working for you. If not, you are its patsy.
Thus, the stimulus and the bailout have failed to produce significant results. This is not surprising. Keynesian policies failed during the Great Depression as well. Pundits assert that as a result of the recent failure of the Bush-Obama policies (failure on paper, not in their intent, which is to help Wall Street, not to reduce unemployment), Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel have handed in their resignations.
One of the Bush-Obama strategies has been to massively expand the monetary base and the money supply. The argument for this policy is monetarist, and the monetarists don't differ much from Keynesians. Both believe that printing money can beneficially stabilize the economy. Neither accedes that the new money is a wealth transfer device to Wall Street.
Forbes reports that the wealthiest Americans have gotten wealthier this year. The wealthiest among them are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, both of whom are Democrats. According to the Los Angeles Times mergers and acquisitions are at an all time high. A guest on Bloomberg radio today was saying that Wall Street has never had a better year. Although this is never stated in the Wall Street-controlled media, Wall Street's economic flourishing depends entirely on the Federal Reserve Bank. It is not attributable to free markets and it is not capitalist.
The Wall Street investment banks and law firms are profiting handsomely due to the Fed's monetary creation and the Bush-Obama administration. The merger activity is directly due to the administration's new money. It has had no hand in reducing unemployment, in improving the economy or making the public better off. Rather, it serves to harm the economy by reducing competition and paying commissions to bankers and Wall Street lawyers for destroying rather than creating wealth.
If you have seen a commission check or have a salary that depends on the recent expansion of merger activity, the US government is working for you. If not, you are its patsy.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Free Trade Is Not America's Problem
In a recent article in Human Events.com (h/t Glenda McGee) Pat Buchanan gives an incisive analysis of the faltering neo-conservative, "Rockefeller Republican" movement within the Republican Party. He lyrically depicts professional Republicans' attitudes toward the Tea Party movement as those of plantation owners toward their field hands. I appreciate Buchanan's Populist writing, but Populism is part of the problem, not the solution.
In particular, Buchanan does not offer a coherent model of trade. He couples his attack on the neo-conservatives with an attack on free trade, or at least what seems to be an attack on free trade. He does not articulate a rational position. If his position is protectionist, he is suicidal. If he is in favor of a laissez faire, zero tariff trade policy as preferable to the various treaties he mentions I'm all for it. Also, I wouldn't mind eliminating NAFTA which just creates a different kind of trade barrier. WTO (the later name for GATT) is another story. It has pushed the world toward lower tariffs all around. This ought to stimulate the world's economic health. Americans should be able to generate new jobs through entrepreneurship and imagination. That they haven't isn't the fault of reducing trade barriers; it is the fault of a fascist economy that inhibits creativity and entrepreneurship. If Buchanan is in favor of dismantling the blockages: the income tax, the Fed, government regulation and the like then I am with him. But I don't agree that trade is the source of our problems. Creating trade barriers is just another way to subsidize sclerotic industries and unproductive work.
In particular, Buchanan does not offer a coherent model of trade. He couples his attack on the neo-conservatives with an attack on free trade, or at least what seems to be an attack on free trade. He does not articulate a rational position. If his position is protectionist, he is suicidal. If he is in favor of a laissez faire, zero tariff trade policy as preferable to the various treaties he mentions I'm all for it. Also, I wouldn't mind eliminating NAFTA which just creates a different kind of trade barrier. WTO (the later name for GATT) is another story. It has pushed the world toward lower tariffs all around. This ought to stimulate the world's economic health. Americans should be able to generate new jobs through entrepreneurship and imagination. That they haven't isn't the fault of reducing trade barriers; it is the fault of a fascist economy that inhibits creativity and entrepreneurship. If Buchanan is in favor of dismantling the blockages: the income tax, the Fed, government regulation and the like then I am with him. But I don't agree that trade is the source of our problems. Creating trade barriers is just another way to subsidize sclerotic industries and unproductive work.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Sleeping Prophet Krauthammer Bemoans O'Donnell Win
I don't watch TV news or read newspapers so I depend on friends for interesting points. Glenda McGee mentioned that Charles Krauthammer has fumed about Christie O'Donnell's victory (O'Donnell is a Tea Party social conservative) and other Tea Party victors this week. See the video excerpt below.
In a Washington Post article Krauthammer quotes what he calls the "Buckley Rule": vote for the most conservative candidate who is electable. This year's polls though have been inaccurate. New York pollsters were predicting a one point Lazio victory the day before the election and virtually all of the GOP and Conservative Party hacks were supporting Lazio on the basis of the Krauthammer/Buckley rule, yet Paladino defeated Lazio by 65-35%. This outcome does not influence Krauthammer's analysis because he has a different, unspoken motivation (greed), as did many of Lazio's supporters.
But Krauthammer is smarter than any polling company, and he is better at predicting election outcomes than was Edgar Cayce, remembered as "the sleeping prophet." He can predict election outcomes so well that he can apply the self-destructive Buckley rule every time. It doesn't occur to Krauthammer that if conservatives are right then the big government policies will eventually implode. At that point, the conservative alternative will be preferable.
The "Buckley rule" led directly to the bailout and directly to the failure of post 1980 Republicans to limit the size of government. Government expands because both parties favor expansive policies. The Democrats do so because they don't care about the Republicans and elect candidates who believe in big government and the Republicans do so because they believe in the absurd principle that you should adopt the beliefs of your political opponents because doing so makes you more likely to win.
Krauthammer is a great adviser to people who like big government. That said, there is a reason why I don't bother reading newspapers or watching television news. Their ideas are out of date, just like the Krauthammer/Buckley rule. The policies of the big government establishment have become evidently harmful. The cat is out of the bag. People are being made poorer by those who claim to act in their interests. For instance, Krauthammer/Buckley favored George W. Bush. Would it have made any difference if Kerry had won? I doubt it. There probably would have been less expansion of government under Kerry. I say that as someone who voted for Bush and started to feel like a fool soon thereafter.
I very much doubt that Krauthammer and his allies have ever supported any candidate who has not supported the bailout or inflation. They are very much part of the same establishment that the Democrats are. They have no intention of stopping Obama in principle, just in practice. Krauthammer dislikes Obama because he would like his cronies to be doing the same things that Obama is doing except that his cronies be the ones doing them. Was Dick Cheney really that much better than Rahm Emanuel? Why would anyone vote for a fat fascist rather than a thin one? Why would I care if the candidates whom Krauthammer supports are elected over the candidates whom the Democrats offer? They are equally garbage.
In a Washington Post article Krauthammer quotes what he calls the "Buckley Rule": vote for the most conservative candidate who is electable. This year's polls though have been inaccurate. New York pollsters were predicting a one point Lazio victory the day before the election and virtually all of the GOP and Conservative Party hacks were supporting Lazio on the basis of the Krauthammer/Buckley rule, yet Paladino defeated Lazio by 65-35%. This outcome does not influence Krauthammer's analysis because he has a different, unspoken motivation (greed), as did many of Lazio's supporters.
But Krauthammer is smarter than any polling company, and he is better at predicting election outcomes than was Edgar Cayce, remembered as "the sleeping prophet." He can predict election outcomes so well that he can apply the self-destructive Buckley rule every time. It doesn't occur to Krauthammer that if conservatives are right then the big government policies will eventually implode. At that point, the conservative alternative will be preferable.
The "Buckley rule" led directly to the bailout and directly to the failure of post 1980 Republicans to limit the size of government. Government expands because both parties favor expansive policies. The Democrats do so because they don't care about the Republicans and elect candidates who believe in big government and the Republicans do so because they believe in the absurd principle that you should adopt the beliefs of your political opponents because doing so makes you more likely to win.
Krauthammer is a great adviser to people who like big government. That said, there is a reason why I don't bother reading newspapers or watching television news. Their ideas are out of date, just like the Krauthammer/Buckley rule. The policies of the big government establishment have become evidently harmful. The cat is out of the bag. People are being made poorer by those who claim to act in their interests. For instance, Krauthammer/Buckley favored George W. Bush. Would it have made any difference if Kerry had won? I doubt it. There probably would have been less expansion of government under Kerry. I say that as someone who voted for Bush and started to feel like a fool soon thereafter.
I very much doubt that Krauthammer and his allies have ever supported any candidate who has not supported the bailout or inflation. They are very much part of the same establishment that the Democrats are. They have no intention of stopping Obama in principle, just in practice. Krauthammer dislikes Obama because he would like his cronies to be doing the same things that Obama is doing except that his cronies be the ones doing them. Was Dick Cheney really that much better than Rahm Emanuel? Why would anyone vote for a fat fascist rather than a thin one? Why would I care if the candidates whom Krauthammer supports are elected over the candidates whom the Democrats offer? They are equally garbage.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
