It's a start

I'll admit that I am genuinely surprised that Obama has agreed to extend the current tax rates rather than raise taxes. Our economy will do better because of this. Now if government could learn the lesson and realize that the best thing they can do for the economy is absolutely nothing we'd all be better off.

Time for your feeding

When are the poor going to be outraged? I ask because government, in the name of helping, treats them as substandard. Personally, I can't stand being treated as less than someone else and I cannot understand why the poor tolerate it.

Helping is noble, whether through government or private charity. But how you help indicates how you perceive those helped. Take food stamps for example. A food stamp is basically money that can only be used for food (a government gift card). Why does government give people gift cards instead of money? If you said because it doesn't trust them, go to the head of the class.

The implicit assumption is that poor people are so stupid or irresponsible that they will not spend the money on food. That's insulting. Yes, there are irresponsible people, but do you seriously think they would starve to death if you gave them money rather than food stamps?

Give people money to buy food and let them save their dignity. If they screw up, let them suffer the consequences and learn from their mistakes. If you treat them like adults, you might be surprised to learn that they are not much different than you.

Wealth is Right

Just to give an idea of tax revenues over the years, look at the chart. While recently things haven't been so good, the overall trend is up. In fact, revenues have tripled since 1965. If we assume that past trends will continue, then the government will take in about $6.5 trillion 45 years from now. To put that into perspective, our population is only expected to be about 438 million in 2050. This means that the federal government can spend twice as much on every single one of us than they do today.

What's even more striking is the implication for the welfare of the average American. In order to take in that amount of tax revenue, actual productive output must increase correspondingly. This means that in aggregate, there will be a ton of money in the hands of private individuals, about 2.5 times the amount today.

What this implies is that the fiscal future is bright regardless of today's rhetoric. A good conservative strategy should be to wait it out by delaying the left's agenda for as long as possible. Liberalism's greatest argument has always been about helping those in need while it's agenda has always been one of control. One day, we will be rich enough to lift up the needy and cut down the legs of liberalism.

How much is enough?

With all the talk about extending the Bush tax cuts, all I hear about is how the rich aren't paying their fair share. Let's disregard the fact that the rich pay more in taxes than they collect in benefits. Let's disregard that they earned their money through hard work and thrift. And let's assume that the rich are dirty rotten scoundrels. What I want to know is how much is enough, how much is fair, and at what point does it get ridiculous?

Here's my point, even if we concede that government's role is to redistribute wealth, most would agree that raising taxes on the very wealthy so that everyone has at least $100,000 is absurd. On some level, the argument for redistribution is to prevent poverty, not to enable every dead beat American to live an upper middle class life. In addition, most don't make $100,000 working, so why would anybody work?

You might say that that's an extreme example, no one is advocating giving everyone $100,000 for being alive. Well, no, but at some point if our economy continues to grow and government revenues continue to increase and our birthrate continues to decrease, government will be flush with money. And the question that ought to be on everyone's mind is what will government do with that money?

When we get to that point, and we will, one has to ask the question, how much is enough?

House is burning down

Doctor Gregory House is a super genius who always knows what's in the patients best interest. On the latest episode, House has to hire a new addition to his team. It must be a woman because... Anyway, they hire a woman who's also a super genius except, unlike House, has a conscience.

The story continues with House's henchmen breaking and entering in order to figure out the secrets the patient won't reveal. It's ok because "everybody lies" and it's for the patients own good. The new goody two shoes doctor (a med student actually) refuses to break the law and with that act is cast by House as a moral midget, not suitable to her gigantic brain.

The moral dilemma continues throughout the episode and comes to a boil when the two super geniuses argue over whether the patient should be informed of his two treatment options. Treatment 1, the inferior treatment and treatment 2, the "right" treatment.

House doesn't want to present treatment option number 1, because A. It's not as effective, and B. the patient is stupid and will choose it (which the patient promptly does). House is interested in saving lives, not letting idiotic patients (read: not super geniuses) decide their own fate.

In the end, all is well because the conscientious super genius is able to reason with the patient that House is right and convinces him to choose the "right" treatment. Hooray to super geniuses, what would us ordinary folks do without them?

House is a TV show, but it unintentionally reveals the left wing view of the world of its writers. It's a view which flips morality upside down and debates the immorality of "incorrect" decisions. In this world, the sin is not in doing harm, but not doing good. Doctor House is the manifestation of the Lefts technical bureaucrats who know what's good for you. On the show, and in life, we ignore it because medicine is far out of our realm of expertise. But the premise holds for everything There is a right answer out there and the experts know it. It is foolish and wrong to reject it. The repugnance of this view is that imposing your genius on an unwilling person is not deemed morally wrong, only questionable.

Perhaps super geniuses will lead our lives better than we would. Perhaps they will make no mistakes, it's assumed they would make less than us. Nonetheless, why ought it be up to someone else to make my life mistake free? Choice only matters when you can choose the "wrong" thing.

Incentives Matter

If you believe as I do that people respond to incentives, then here's an interesting thought experiment. Imagine a world where the poor pay zero taxes. In such a world, would government be more or less likely to create jobs for poor people? I'd say they'd be less likely because what the government really cares about are revenues, and if more people working doesn't generate any additional revenue, then why would government care if they worked or not?

Year of the shark

I remember a few years back the national news in a tizzy about shark attacks. Every week another victim was shark meat and there were no safe harbors anywhere. Turns out that that year, there were about the same number of shark attacks as any other year, and the hullabaloo was self inflicted.

Seems every year, heck, every month a new biggest thing is born. This year, it's the Tea Parties. While the Tea Parties are significant, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The economy sucks, democrats have progressed to being visibly nuts, and Obama-We're-the-ones-we've-been-waiting-for-mania has gone away. Tea Party or no Tea Party, the democrats were going to get crushed.

The Tea Party is not symbolic of liberal woes, but of conservative ones. The tea party is first and foremost a conservative movement, a movement resurrected from the ashes of actual fiscal conservatism. The Tea Party arose to send a message to the Republican party: stick to your principles. We'll see what lasting effect the Tea Parties have in a year...if any of us remember.

They are evil

On some level, most of us feel like we are being screwed. It's not true of course, but this feeling serves a very important psychological purpose: self delusion. Our ego cannot allow us to feel inferior, so instead of looking within ourselves, we look outward for scapegoats and bogeymen to blame. We think our boss exploits us, that mega-companies charge too much, and that luck is not on our side.

I think most of us intuitively know we are not being shafted left and right. You go to class and see the smart kid in the room. You see her talent and you know she’s special. Every day she works her butt off and eventually it pays off. And even the most cynical among us can’t help but admit, she's earned everything she's got.

Nonetheless, the need for bogeymen persists, and we don't personally know every smart girl in the room. To assuage our egos, we simmer illicit stories of how she became rich. What wrongs she must have committed to rise above us, or how it was just plain luck.

Politics essentially divides itself along two lines. The first takes as its premise that what people have, they earned. The second believes that what you have is not earned, or at least not earned rightly.

Liberalism, the politics of entitlement, is manna to your ego. When you see successful people, liberalism sells the idea that you have been shafted; that they don't deserve their success; that if you give liberals power, they will get you what you are entitled. It's a dangerous philosophy as it pits man against man, and feeds on our innate animal desires.

This is not an extreme view of liberalism. At its heart, liberalism is based on the presumption that your fellow man profits at your expense and this causes conflict by definition.

It's the frailty of our ego that wants to transform smart, successful women into our personal scapegoats. It's the tragedy of liberalism to encourage it.

Elevator Manners

I think you can tell a lot about people from little things. Recently I moved to Seattle from Minneapolis and I originally hail from Michigan. I work in an eleven story office building and every day I ride the elevator up to the sixth floor. And every day not one person ever asks me which floor I am heading to, not one person volunteers to push the button for me, and not one person ever asks me to press the button for them.

It's freakin weird. In most places people routinely ask other people which floor they are going to, and they routinely hit the button because it's a nice and friendly thing to do. But here, they are not nice and they are not friendly and it's noticeable.

And I wonder why and I blame liberalism. It might be a stretch, but the way I see it, the reason people are so disconnected, the reason they don't acknowledge your existence inside and outside the elevator, is that it's not their responsibility. It's the responsibility of the state. They pay taxes not because they care, but so they don't have to.

It's not in anyones genes to ignore other people. It's a learned behavior. Liberalism teaches that society, not individuals, are responsible for others. Individuals gradually learn that it's not their job to engage, and it becomes the norm. Every day I ride six floors silently with people who have been taught to shut the world out because it's not their responsibility. Maybe not, but small acts of kindness make the world such a nice place. Let's not teach people to avoid them.

Artists wanted

If there are any artists out there interested in having their work posted here, please get in touch.

Food stamps, the road to recovery

Economic illiteracy is rampant and I heard a gem today listening to the Randy Rhodes show. In between lambasting Newt Gingrich for who knows what, she gave the audience a weapon to throw at those deranged conservatives. Apparently, some conservative wants to limit food stamp payments (the evil cold hearted bastard) and this is wrong not only morally, but economically. For you see it turns out that for every 5 dollars spent, 9 dollar in economic activity is generated. It's nonsense, but in case it isn't obvious here's a simple thought experiment to convince you.

Giving 1 person 5 dollars worth of food stamps and generating 9 dollars is a great deal. If I were a businessman I would do it all day, every day. Therefore it makes perfect sense that we should give everyone 5 dollars worth of food stamps! Just think of all the money generated for the economy! Brilliant liberal thinking.

P.S. Remember this when you hear how much each dollar of unemployment contributes to the economy. And when that time comes let your inner inquisitor ask, if 1 dollar of unemployment is good, shouldn't more dollars be better? How about a million dollars?

Basic Economics

Many of our largest and most significant industries still have business models that rely on the use of debt to purchase goods and services. Unless you’re a multimillionaire, it’s difficult to make significant purchases — college tuition, a Viking stove, a Toyota Prius, computers, jewelry, a house — out of savings or cash flow from wages. The renewed willingness and confidence to spend money we don’t have is vital to the continuing recovery.

John Maynard Keynes wrote of the paradox of thrift — if everyone saves, everyone becomes poorer, because demand for goods and services will fall. Here’s another paradox: Running up consumer debt may be a moral failure and a recipe for long-term damnation, but it also contains the roots of our short-term salvation.

Daniel Gross, author of “Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the Nation,” is the economics editor and columnist at Yahoo! Finance.

These concluding paragraphs from an op-ed in yesterday's NY Times struck me as interesting.

First, the author is wrong, regardless of whether you are a multimillionaire or not, you spend what you have or will have. There is never a free lunch. The only thing to remember is that you can spend today and save tomorrow (also known as paying back), or you can save today and spend tomorrow. Regardless, in order to consume, you MUST save. Any notion to the contrary is just nonsense.

The paradox of thrift is not really a paradox. It's true that if people decide to stop trading, there is less value in society, but it's vitally important to realize why. Is it because their is less stuff in society? The answer is no, the amount of stuff produced is exactly the same. Saving only means that you don't trade (spend), it does not make any statements with regards to production. So if the amount of stuff (consumer goods) out there is the same, how can I say we are actually poorer? I'll leave it to someone to comment on.

And a final, personal note. Just because the road to hell is paved with good intentions, doesn't mean we should travel down it for a while and see what great things we can achieve before the Inferno envelopes us.

Leave politics out of the movie theater

So there I was spending a nice, relaxing evening with my girlfriend watching a movie, "Julie and Julia". The movie was pretty good, not great, but enjoyable nonetheless. However, for some unknown reason the movie couldn't resist a constant undercurrent of Republican bashing. And near the middle of the movie, outright Republican bashing. The offending line from the movie (paraphrased)

If I were an evil Republican, I would have fired you.

Apparently, hollywood thinks it's brilliant to insult your potential audience (or maybe those rich Republicans don't see movies?). Regardless, thinly veiled insinuations and their unveiled cousins, ruin the movie. It would be one thing if the nature of the movie were political, but the movie had nothing to do with politics. The only reason I can think of why this dynamic was added to the movie is that these people are so hate filled, that in a fun, light hearted movie, they can't resist every opportunity to twist the knife.

Hollywood, I know most of you play on the wrong team (pun intended, and it's a joke, so relax everyone), but can't you stick to telling good stories about interesting people and leave politics at the door. All us evil conservatives would appreciate it and it might even make you more money to contribute to Al Franken.

The new financial plan

Politically, no one wants there programs cut. So if you want to win, you don't do so by suggesting cutting programs! Here's what should be the campaign pledge for spending. No new spending until the deficit is under control. That's it, keep spending levels constant, don't cut, but don't spend more. People understand that you can't continue to spend like a drunken sailor so they will be for it. They also see that you aren't cutting their precious entitlements so they have a harder time being against it. Finally, it builds on the fiscal responsibility story you are trying to create with your political brand.

How many jobs were "created" or "saved"?

Recently someone said that the CBO claimed that 1.3 million jobs were created due to the stimulus. I don't believe that number for a second. It all depends on comparing how many jobs would have been created without the stimulus. We don't know that, so we can't really say whether the stimulus helped at all.

Nonetheless, I am lazy, is there anyone out there who can better explain this?