My wife showed me a really interesting propaganda cartoon from Russia. The cartoon which was for International Women's Day (March 8th) featured a housewife buried under a mountain of chores and a free woman, a communist, offering an outstretched hand trying to rescue the housewife from domestic slavery.
I am not one to comment on whether the choice to become a housewife is good or bad. That's for her to decide. But what's interesting is that the ad is not about "rescuing" the trapped woman from a life of drudgery. The ad is about attacking that which threatens communism, and what threatens communism is to have its subjects value other things more than communism.
Whether it be G-d or the family, if a man or a woman places those first, if those are inviolable aspects to one's existence, then that creates a fracture in one's loyalty to the state and this is something the state cannot allow.
There shouldn't be any secret why religion was outlawed in communist Russia, religious conviction is a danger to the state. The communist desire to "free" women from the bonds of domestication is no charitable act, it's an act of self preservation. Like religion, the family is also a threat, and breaking the family bond makes the state stronger.
Throw off your old masters, so you can embrace your new ones. That's "freedom" to the Left.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Random Deflections
Krugman is at it again. Confusing lazy minds and wobbly hearts with his brilliance and derangement. He claims that Nobody Understands Debt except for him. Let's hear what he has to say:
As to his second point, think about what can happen when you loan the government $100.
1. The government tells you to jump in the river and doesn't pay you back.
2. The government taxes you $100 and gives you back your money.
Either way, you're out $100.
Government debt is nothing more than delayed taxation. The left sincerely believes that higher taxes and more government will help the economy. That's nuts, and so is Mr. Krugman.
Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.
This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t...
Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.Families don't have to pay back their debt either. They, like the government, can pay interest payments until the end of time. There is absolutely nothing sacred about government debt, other than the near religious belief that they will pay you back.
As to his second point, think about what can happen when you loan the government $100.
1. The government tells you to jump in the river and doesn't pay you back.
2. The government taxes you $100 and gives you back your money.
Either way, you're out $100.
Government debt is nothing more than delayed taxation. The left sincerely believes that higher taxes and more government will help the economy. That's nuts, and so is Mr. Krugman.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Something doesn't add up...
Here's a head-scratcher from the New York Times:
Color me skeptical, but I don't see 150 million or so Americans barely getting by. We are the richest nation that has ever existed, and apparently we are doing better than 1979. Yet this author would have you believe that half the country is basically begging for food. Ridiculous.
Oh, and why do you suppose the statistic starts in 1979 and ends in 2007? I'm curious to know how 3 years of liberalism have helped the bottom 20 percent.
An Associated Press report this week on census data found that “a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.” The report said that the data “depict a middle class that’s shrinking.”
Here's a dumb question, how can the middle class shrink when their earnings have increased? It can't. That's right folks, if everyone's household income goes up in real terms, then everyone is better off, including the shrinking middle class.An October report from the Congressional Budget Office found that, from 1979 to 2007, the average real after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest incomes rose 275 percent. For the rest of the top 20 percent of earners, it rose 65 percent. But it rose just 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
Color me skeptical, but I don't see 150 million or so Americans barely getting by. We are the richest nation that has ever existed, and apparently we are doing better than 1979. Yet this author would have you believe that half the country is basically begging for food. Ridiculous.
Oh, and why do you suppose the statistic starts in 1979 and ends in 2007? I'm curious to know how 3 years of liberalism have helped the bottom 20 percent.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Keynes makes a little sense
I was thinking about it the other day and the rationale for Keynesian stimulus spending hit me. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand the problem he was trying to solve.
The problem goes like this: say you have 3 people, 2 who are working, 1 who isn't. Real wealth is what the total economy produces. In our imaginary economy the actual wealth is the output of the 2 people, the third contributes nothing to the economy. He is under utilized. Say we could put this guy to work, whatever he produces is a net gain for the economy. It doesn't matter what he produces because he wasn't producing anything before.
That's it. Keynes saw a situation where the capacity of the economy wasn't being utilized and he attempted to create remedies for that situation. Now I don't know enough to criticize all the remedies, but there is one obvious caveat. This logic is only valid when one person is involuntarily out of work. If he is not, then diverting his work to some other task, is a net loss for the economy.
Another thing to consider is that in our imaginary economy all we see is the symptom. A person is out of work who could be producing something of value. What we don't know is why.
The problem goes like this: say you have 3 people, 2 who are working, 1 who isn't. Real wealth is what the total economy produces. In our imaginary economy the actual wealth is the output of the 2 people, the third contributes nothing to the economy. He is under utilized. Say we could put this guy to work, whatever he produces is a net gain for the economy. It doesn't matter what he produces because he wasn't producing anything before.
That's it. Keynes saw a situation where the capacity of the economy wasn't being utilized and he attempted to create remedies for that situation. Now I don't know enough to criticize all the remedies, but there is one obvious caveat. This logic is only valid when one person is involuntarily out of work. If he is not, then diverting his work to some other task, is a net loss for the economy.
Another thing to consider is that in our imaginary economy all we see is the symptom. A person is out of work who could be producing something of value. What we don't know is why.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
That's a lot of money
3,000,000,000,000 - 12 zeroes in a trillion, a million million, a lot of freaking money. Three trillion is about 10,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in this country. I don't know about anyone else, but the idea that we have a revenue problem is a joke. We need to control our spending. Right now we spend a trillion more than we take in. If we just held spending constant, revenues would eventually equal spending. And when revenues continue to rise, so can spending. One day we would have 4 trillion, then 5, then 6, then...does it really matter once you have that much money?
Politics is increasingly less and less about money, and more and more about psychology. Why does income inequality matter? Because it makes people unhappy to have less than the guy next to them, even when they have quite a bit themselves. Happiness is a psychological state, not a material one. Liberal politicians understand this; they point out happiness problems and offer "solutions" to those problems.
The reality is that we need to placate people whose only problem is their own greed and envy. Like it or not, but a problem in someones head is a problem we need to solve.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
No Brainer
Who should the Republicans run against Obama? Herman Cain, that's who. First, the guy is rock solid on economic policy and if anyone hasn't noticed, the country could use someone like that. Second, he's passionate, articulate, and smart. He's all the things Obama claims to be. Finally, he's black. He'd garner a huge proportion of the minority vote and give white liberals a way to ease their conscience for voting against Obama. The guy would win by a landslide and he would put this country back on sound footing until the next crazy liberal was elected. I like Cain, and so should you.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Can't give it away
Of all the ways to raise "revenues", i.e. increase taxes, none is more insidious than limiting charitable deductions. Private charity exemplifies the humanity we feel toward our fellow man. No one forces anyone to give their hard earned money and time to complete strangers. Nothing is expected in return, only the hope that the needy are lifted from need, and that one day they can be givers as well.
Charitable deductions are a way for government to encourage giving, to encourage humanity. When government takes away those deductions, it by definition discourages giving and humanity. For liberals, government is the ultimate benefactor of mankind. It's telling and sad, that liberals want to take from charity so they can give to the needy.
Charitable deductions are a way for government to encourage giving, to encourage humanity. When government takes away those deductions, it by definition discourages giving and humanity. For liberals, government is the ultimate benefactor of mankind. It's telling and sad, that liberals want to take from charity so they can give to the needy.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Mad Men
My soon to be wife and I are watching "Mad Men". It's a very entertaining, if not erratic show. Set in the 60's, it's at the forefront of social change in America; civil rights, social norms, you name it. I think what most people notice first about the show is the treatment of women in the workplace. Women are nothing more than spectacle for the men and treated as such. One of the main characters, Peggy Olson, is a women who is making it in a man's world, and we are led to believe that this is social progress. A woman being promoted to copy writer; a man's job being done by a woman.
It's an interesting social commentary on the progress of women in the work force, how they broke through the glass ceiling. But I find the insight to be only skin deep. Yes, women were treated badly, and yes it's remarkable for Peggy to achieve success as a copy writer. But what's more remarkable is that men are copy writers. Copy writing, advertising, is not a man's job. 50 years before, no man was a copy writer, the job didn't exist. Before men could keep women out of the copy writing business, there had to be a copy writing business.
Women's success in the work force is part of the same revolution that brought us male copy writers. Women didn't break through the glass ceiling, the glass ceiling rendered itself obsolete.
It's an interesting social commentary on the progress of women in the work force, how they broke through the glass ceiling. But I find the insight to be only skin deep. Yes, women were treated badly, and yes it's remarkable for Peggy to achieve success as a copy writer. But what's more remarkable is that men are copy writers. Copy writing, advertising, is not a man's job. 50 years before, no man was a copy writer, the job didn't exist. Before men could keep women out of the copy writing business, there had to be a copy writing business.
Women's success in the work force is part of the same revolution that brought us male copy writers. Women didn't break through the glass ceiling, the glass ceiling rendered itself obsolete.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Cuts, Cap, And Tax
Some things make me wonder, like the latest plan to forestall financial disaster. I read that the proposal is to institute 75% in spending cuts along with 25% in tax increases. Sounds good for the good guys, right? Maybe, but why make it so complicated? Let's do the math:
Reduce spending by 3 dollars, raise taxes by 1 dollar = 2 dollars net in reduced government spending.
Call me simplistic (read: skeptical), but couldn't we just have easily had a deal which reduced federal spending by 2 dollars and achieved the same result? Well...yes! So why don't we? It's really simple, the only reason to tie tax raises to spending cuts instead of simply agreeing on reduced spending is because you want to raise taxes and not cut spending. Keep it simple, stupid, and don't get snookered.
Reduce spending by 3 dollars, raise taxes by 1 dollar = 2 dollars net in reduced government spending.
Call me simplistic (read: skeptical), but couldn't we just have easily had a deal which reduced federal spending by 2 dollars and achieved the same result? Well...yes! So why don't we? It's really simple, the only reason to tie tax raises to spending cuts instead of simply agreeing on reduced spending is because you want to raise taxes and not cut spending. Keep it simple, stupid, and don't get snookered.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Whose money is it?
Recently my girlfriend and I were listening to liberal talk radio and unfortunately, she was hoodwinked. Not to worry, I set her straight, but it is an interesting lesson in economic fallacies and the liberal mind.
The topic du jour was executive pay, and its exorbitance, especially relative to the lowest paid worker. In the 1970's a CEO got paid roughly 30 times that of the janitor, but today, that ratio has skyrocketed to roughly 10 times what it was. Even I have to admit, that's a lot of money.
But here's the interesting point. The radio host effectively convicted CEO's because they made so much more than the rest of the employees. The CEO sits on his behind all day and steals from the janitor who works his behind off all day. It's just unfair.
To whom? Unfair to the janitor? Unfair to the other employees?
Who pays the janitor, the engineer, and the CEO? The owners, that's who. The owners decide to pay the CEO a lot of money, and they decide to pay the janitors and everyone else a lot less. And if anyone is getting ripped off, it's the owners. They are the ones whose profit goes down as CEO pay goes up.
Curiously, the radio host never cries for the owners. He will never cry for them, because in his mind, the profits don't belong to them either. His only goal is to incite envy and hatred in order to justify rage which he can channel. Yes, CEO's get paid a lot. But they didn't take it from you or me, and they certainly didn't steal it from the janitor.
The topic du jour was executive pay, and its exorbitance, especially relative to the lowest paid worker. In the 1970's a CEO got paid roughly 30 times that of the janitor, but today, that ratio has skyrocketed to roughly 10 times what it was. Even I have to admit, that's a lot of money.
But here's the interesting point. The radio host effectively convicted CEO's because they made so much more than the rest of the employees. The CEO sits on his behind all day and steals from the janitor who works his behind off all day. It's just unfair.
To whom? Unfair to the janitor? Unfair to the other employees?
Who pays the janitor, the engineer, and the CEO? The owners, that's who. The owners decide to pay the CEO a lot of money, and they decide to pay the janitors and everyone else a lot less. And if anyone is getting ripped off, it's the owners. They are the ones whose profit goes down as CEO pay goes up.
Curiously, the radio host never cries for the owners. He will never cry for them, because in his mind, the profits don't belong to them either. His only goal is to incite envy and hatred in order to justify rage which he can channel. Yes, CEO's get paid a lot. But they didn't take it from you or me, and they certainly didn't steal it from the janitor.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Atlas Shrugged
Went with my girlfriend to see the movie this weekend and I didn't think it would be very good, but like Star Wars, I had to see it. Anyway, it wasn't as bad as the critics said, but it wasn't very good either. The book the movie is based on is nothing more than a thin veil of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and unfortunately it doesn't come across as a very entertaining, nor comprehensible movie.
What the movie needed was a major rewrite. For G-ds sake, make the characters act and speak like human beings! Also, it might be blasphemy, but temper the philosophy to its essential and universally appreciated points. Maybe it wouldn't be "Atlas Shrugged" to the faithful, but so what? If people want the undiluted version of the book, read the book!
Most people, including myself, find the appeal of Ayn Rand in her unrelenting celebration of the individual. That Man doesn't exist for other men, but for himself. She believed that the philosophy of altruism/collectivism, where man is viewed as a sacrificial animal to others/society, is abhorrent.
I don't ascribe to Objectivism, and I am certain that the adherents of Objectivism would castigate those like me. But the reality is that there are tons of us out there who implicitly understand and celebrate, the message that individual achievement is moral and admirable for its own sake. Capitalism is moral, not because it's "Dog eat dog", but because it is the manifestation that what you produce is your achievement, and that others placing a claim on your life is immoral.
That's what inspires me about Atlas Shrugged, and I think that's what inspires others too. It isn't some philosophically consistent diatribe, but universal themes of individual achievement, freedom, and morality. One day, that will make a great movie.
What the movie needed was a major rewrite. For G-ds sake, make the characters act and speak like human beings! Also, it might be blasphemy, but temper the philosophy to its essential and universally appreciated points. Maybe it wouldn't be "Atlas Shrugged" to the faithful, but so what? If people want the undiluted version of the book, read the book!
Most people, including myself, find the appeal of Ayn Rand in her unrelenting celebration of the individual. That Man doesn't exist for other men, but for himself. She believed that the philosophy of altruism/collectivism, where man is viewed as a sacrificial animal to others/society, is abhorrent.
I don't ascribe to Objectivism, and I am certain that the adherents of Objectivism would castigate those like me. But the reality is that there are tons of us out there who implicitly understand and celebrate, the message that individual achievement is moral and admirable for its own sake. Capitalism is moral, not because it's "Dog eat dog", but because it is the manifestation that what you produce is your achievement, and that others placing a claim on your life is immoral.
That's what inspires me about Atlas Shrugged, and I think that's what inspires others too. It isn't some philosophically consistent diatribe, but universal themes of individual achievement, freedom, and morality. One day, that will make a great movie.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Medi-choice
"If you like your medical care, you can keep it."
As Neo correctly deciphered, the issue is choice. Obama-care passed because despite its obvious awfulness, it offered the false choice that nothing had to change. Why don't conservatives learn this lesson?
It's amazing listening to the Left and their attacks against completely reasonable proposals regarding health care. The proposal: instead of receiving government insurance, give people money to buy their own insurance. Sounds radical, right? No, but what's radical is the insinuation that conservatives want to destroy Medicare, rob old people, and give their money to millionaires and billionaires (who ironically happen to be quite old).
The logic behind the proposal is that by giving people money, they become conscientious consumers. You would be employing millions of people to act as fiscal watch dogs over health insurance companies. Right now, no one has any incentive to restrain their health care consumption because they don't pay for it. Like it or not, the logic is compelling and just makes common sense.
Of course there are people who disagree, so how can we sell this "experiment" and see if it actually works? Liberals, for all their open mindedness, will not allow the experiment to be run. So we have to get people on board by letting them keep what they have, and allowing them to try our proposal. If you like Medicare, you can keep it. But ours might be a better deal and the choice is yours.
Choice is always a political winner, which is why Obama so disingenuously employed it. We don't have to lie; we offer choice and that's how we should sell our ideas to the American people.
As Neo correctly deciphered, the issue is choice. Obama-care passed because despite its obvious awfulness, it offered the false choice that nothing had to change. Why don't conservatives learn this lesson?
It's amazing listening to the Left and their attacks against completely reasonable proposals regarding health care. The proposal: instead of receiving government insurance, give people money to buy their own insurance. Sounds radical, right? No, but what's radical is the insinuation that conservatives want to destroy Medicare, rob old people, and give their money to millionaires and billionaires (who ironically happen to be quite old).
The logic behind the proposal is that by giving people money, they become conscientious consumers. You would be employing millions of people to act as fiscal watch dogs over health insurance companies. Right now, no one has any incentive to restrain their health care consumption because they don't pay for it. Like it or not, the logic is compelling and just makes common sense.
Of course there are people who disagree, so how can we sell this "experiment" and see if it actually works? Liberals, for all their open mindedness, will not allow the experiment to be run. So we have to get people on board by letting them keep what they have, and allowing them to try our proposal. If you like Medicare, you can keep it. But ours might be a better deal and the choice is yours.
Choice is always a political winner, which is why Obama so disingenuously employed it. We don't have to lie; we offer choice and that's how we should sell our ideas to the American people.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Align incentives
The best way to restrain government is to impose the cost of government on as many people as possible. Why? Because regardless of the cost, everybody's vote counts equally and who wouldn't vote for something they don't have to pay for?
Now the reality is that we could always ask the rich to pay more. After all, it's only fair because they have all the money. The issue however isn't fairness, but efficiency, and taking money from the rich makes us all poorer. Even if you are a huge proponent of redistribution, it doesn't make sense to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Here's my proposal: redistribute first, and then tax every single tax payer at the same flat rate. The rich will pay more because they have much more money, but the poor will also pay because you gave them money to pay taxes with. This means that they are more likely to resist future tax increases because they have skin in the game, and this will in turn limit the size and scope of government.
Now the reality is that we could always ask the rich to pay more. After all, it's only fair because they have all the money. The issue however isn't fairness, but efficiency, and taking money from the rich makes us all poorer. Even if you are a huge proponent of redistribution, it doesn't make sense to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Here's my proposal: redistribute first, and then tax every single tax payer at the same flat rate. The rich will pay more because they have much more money, but the poor will also pay because you gave them money to pay taxes with. This means that they are more likely to resist future tax increases because they have skin in the game, and this will in turn limit the size and scope of government.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Rich Pay More, DUH!
While not a fan of the "rich don't pay their fair share" camp, I find it slightly disingenuous for my side to argue that the rich pay too much. One statistic bandied about is how the top 1% of income earners contribute nearly 40% of federal income taxes and how the top 50% pay almost all federal income taxes. Well, color me stupid, but so what.
Let's say Rich Guy III makes $1,000,000 and Poor Joe makes $10,000 and they both pay 10% of their income in taxes. Well, even though the individual percentage is the same, Rich Guy III will pay $100,000 vs. $1,000, or 100 times the amount in taxes. As a fraction of the tax pie, Rich Guy III pays about 99%.
The Right seems to think that because these percentages are so skewed in favor of the rich that it will elicit sympathy. Wrong, it simply points out that these people are rich and furthers resentment from those who don't make lots of money.
The issue with taxes is not how high they are, but how they incentivize behavior. Rich and poor alike work and invest to make money, not to pay taxes. At some point, high tax rates act as a disincentive to produce. That's a bad thing. Taxes are a means to generate revenue, and revenue consists not only of what you get today, but what you get tomorrow as well.
The winning argument for conservatives is that taxes are too high because they generate lower total revenue. Not that the "rich" pay too much. The reality is that most Americans are envious and resentful of the "rich". To win, we must acknowledge that and adapt.
Let's say Rich Guy III makes $1,000,000 and Poor Joe makes $10,000 and they both pay 10% of their income in taxes. Well, even though the individual percentage is the same, Rich Guy III will pay $100,000 vs. $1,000, or 100 times the amount in taxes. As a fraction of the tax pie, Rich Guy III pays about 99%.
The Right seems to think that because these percentages are so skewed in favor of the rich that it will elicit sympathy. Wrong, it simply points out that these people are rich and furthers resentment from those who don't make lots of money.
The issue with taxes is not how high they are, but how they incentivize behavior. Rich and poor alike work and invest to make money, not to pay taxes. At some point, high tax rates act as a disincentive to produce. That's a bad thing. Taxes are a means to generate revenue, and revenue consists not only of what you get today, but what you get tomorrow as well.
The winning argument for conservatives is that taxes are too high because they generate lower total revenue. Not that the "rich" pay too much. The reality is that most Americans are envious and resentful of the "rich". To win, we must acknowledge that and adapt.
Monday, April 11, 2011
What do they want from us?
Lately, politics has gotten me despondent, and I am coming to the conclusion that the Left is insane. I am trying to come up with an argument on how to limit taxes on the "rich" and I haven't a clue.
Every day I hear from a Left winger that the "rich" don't pay enough. FINE. Then what would be enough? What would it take for you to leave them alone? Name a freakin number already!
Years ago I had the same thought with regard to education. How much is enough? The problem, we are told over and over again, is money. That's a solvable problem. Hire more teachers, pay them more, do whatever it takes and get it done. Yet spending has gone up significantly, while results have not. Where is the humility? Where is the admission that your hypothesis was invalid?
Saying the "rich" don't pay enough implies that you have a figure in mind. It means that there is a ransom for which you'll release your captive. Yet, I have a sinking feeling that no ransom will ever be enough. The life of the "rich" will always hang in the balance, at the whim of so called social (un)justice.
Taken to the logical conclusion we can either be hopeful or fearful. If there is a definite number, then one day we will reach it. But, if that number doesn't exist, then one has to wonder what the Left actually wants? If it's not money, it's...
Every day I hear from a Left winger that the "rich" don't pay enough. FINE. Then what would be enough? What would it take for you to leave them alone? Name a freakin number already!
Years ago I had the same thought with regard to education. How much is enough? The problem, we are told over and over again, is money. That's a solvable problem. Hire more teachers, pay them more, do whatever it takes and get it done. Yet spending has gone up significantly, while results have not. Where is the humility? Where is the admission that your hypothesis was invalid?
Saying the "rich" don't pay enough implies that you have a figure in mind. It means that there is a ransom for which you'll release your captive. Yet, I have a sinking feeling that no ransom will ever be enough. The life of the "rich" will always hang in the balance, at the whim of so called social (un)justice.
Taken to the logical conclusion we can either be hopeful or fearful. If there is a definite number, then one day we will reach it. But, if that number doesn't exist, then one has to wonder what the Left actually wants? If it's not money, it's...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
