Quote Box ArchiveGo to Past Quote Boxes

Feb 11, 2009

Survive Obama Care

How to Survive "Obama Care"
02/11/09 - MDOD by 911DOC
A doctor in emergency medicine gives some advice about healthcare as specified by Obama and the "stimulus" bill.
[edited] Buried in the "stimulus" package is a bit on health care. It's not making the news in the way it should. It is the equivalent of a bomb threat to American Medicine.

Rationed care is on the way, and the folks who do the rationing will be government 'lifers' who can not be fired and just don't care. So here you go, get to work on these things quickly before the powers that be start watching you closely.

1. Obtain a second social security number and identification card that makes you ten years younger. Keep it well hidden and once you crack 70 years old, or whatever the new cut-off for 'extraordinary care' will be, you will not be kicked to the curb to die quietly at home.

The $500 you spend for this now may save your life later. And if you doubt that this will happen, I have a family member who left the UK twenty years ago because they would not do bypass surgery on her based on her age. She got it here.

(Read 2-5 at the link)

I can not conceive of the rationale for pushing this type of plan. It has been tried and has failed in the UK and, as we have detailed on this site, Canada has good primary care, but for those who do not get their brain cancer or breast cancer at a convenient time Canadians may wait until they die for their free care. They come here. That will stop.

Failure of the New Deal

Imitating Failure
02/08/09 - AmericanThinker by Nicholas J. Kaster
[edited]
Burton Folsom Jr. writes that the New Deal didn't work. He is a professor of history at Hillsdale College, and has published New Deal or Raw Deal? (Threshold Editions, 2008).

Folsom says the New Deal combined bad economic policy and a more corrupt central government.

Obama's so-called stimulus bill, a "new" New Deal full of massive spending, is based upon the conventional wisdom of the New Deal.It will ensure that today's bad economy stays with us for many years.

Henry Morgenthau was Secretary of the Treasury and a confidante of Roosevelt. He testified May 1939:

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot!

Unemployment was 20+ percent in April 1939. This was nearly a decade after the 1929 crash and more than 6 years after FDR's inauguration.

During that time, FDR tried everything to end the crisis: cartelizing industry (the NRA), subsizing farmers (the AAA), creating make-work projects (the WPA), promoting organized labor (the Wagner Act), and finally, launching the modern welfare state (social security, minimum wage laws, the AFDC). It was all funded by a combination of increased debt, excise taxes, and high progressive income taxation.

Most historians tend to overwhelmingly support the New Deal. Folsom says:

Historians sympathize with FDR's "progressivism" and judge him on his good intentions rather than on the results. In the progressive view, intentions and sincerity are among the noblest virtues a president can possess.

If we probe deeply into Roosevelt's popularity, we almost always discover the presence of patronage -- creating and manipulating federal jobs to strengthen his political support.

Feb 10, 2009

Political Truth in Labeling

These are the only Republican senators supporting the stimulus bill. I am making a list and checking it twice.

Sen. Susan Collins - R. Maine   202-224-2523
      Contact Form

Sen. Olympia Snowe - R. Maine   202-224-5344
      Contact Form

Sen. Arlen Specter - R. Pennsylvania   202-224-4254
      Contact Form

They are not from my state of Massachusets; I can't vote for or against them.

I have allocated two $10 bills for each of them. When they come up for election, I will be giving $10 to their primary opponents, and if necessary, $10 to their Democratic opponents.

If they are going to waste our resources, raise my taxes, and decrease my liberty, by voting for a bill they haven't read, then I would rather have Democrats in their place, so that the responsibily for the coming difficulties is laid squarely on the philosophies that have caused them.

It is too difficult keeping philosophies straight when the Republican and Democrat labels are confused. This is my contribution to truth in labeling.

----------
Climate bill clears House in close vote
06/26/09 - Washington Examiner by Lachlan Markay (via Riehl Worldview)

These Republican congressmen just voted for Cap and Trade legislation, a 1500 page bill that only a few in the Democratic leadership had read, and certainly none of these Republicans in name only. This bill taxes energy, the largest tax increase in US history.

Mary Bono Mack (CA)   202-225-5330
Mike Castle    (DE)   202-225-4165
Steven Kirk    (IL)   202-225-4835
Leonard Lance  (NJ)   202-225-5361
Frank LoBiondo (NJ)   202-225-6572
John McHugh    (NY)   202-225-4611
David Reichert (WA)   202-225-7761
Chris Smith    (NJ)   202-225-3765

Feb 8, 2009

Friedman On Greed

Milton Friedman On Greed
02/0/09 - PowerLineBlog by John Hinderaker

The late economist Milton Friedman in a video snippet. He responds to a talk show question: how can you support Capitalism, which is based on personal greed, when there is so much poverty in the world?

[edited excerpt]
Donahue: When you see around the globe the mal-distribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in undeveloped countries ... when you see the greed and the concentration of power, do you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea?

Friedman: The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the auto industry that way.

The only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.

If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. The record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

Feb 7, 2009

Obama's Feet of Clay

The Fierce Urgency of Pork
02/06/09 - WashingtonPost by Charles Krauthammer (via JustOneMinute)
An excerpt, not a summary.
[edited] Yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

The Age of Obama began with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits for tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change "planted" to "ready to market" for a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The promised great ethical transformations would be seen as the usual fairy tale that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

Feb 6, 2009

Spending Did Not Help Japan

What can we learn from Japan?
02/06/09 - CafeHayek by Russell Roberts
[edited] Most Japanese economists take a bleaker view of their nation’s track record, saying that Japan spent more than enough money, but wasted too much of it on roads to nowhere and other unneeded projects.

Dr. Ihori surveyed public works in the 1990s. The spending created almost no additional economic growth. Instead of spreading beneficial ripple effects across the economy, the spending led to declines in business investment by driving out private investors.

Critics said decisions on how to spend the money were made behind closed doors by bureaucrats, politicians and the construction industry, and often reflected political rather than economic considerations.


The Japanese Didn't Try Hard Enough?
02/07/09 - Blog.Mises.Org by Tim Swanson

[edited] This NY Times story discusses the Japanese government spending packages during the 1990's.

The story notes that most Japanese consider all of the plans to be resolute failures. Yet, a number of Western economists believe that Japanese taxpayers simply did not spend enough!

How much was not enough? Japan spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related public investment between 1991 and September 2008. [That is $6,300 billion.]

Read the "Stimulus Package Unveiled" from the WSJ and "Japan" by Benjamin Powell.

Will You Bet On Your Opinion?

Will $100 Shut People Up?
02/06/09 - Crime & Federalism by Mike
[edited] When people state a stupid opinion or false fact, I no longer argue. I say, "OK - I'll bet you $100 that you are wrong."

People never take the bet. What's up with that? It's amazing how something as small as $100 can test a person's convictions. Amazingly, if you will not put $100 on the line, why should I believe you? People want me to change my mind based on their assertions; yet their assertions aren't even worth $100 to them!

How about people who demand that the government provide a stimulus to the economy. Perhaps Paul Krugman will say, "I'll wager $10,000 with any of my critics that if x-stimulus occurs, y-economic effect will follow."

Why aren't these economists making huge bets? They are rather confident in their opinions. They should go win that money! If they are embarrassed by greed, they can set up a charity as the beneficiary of the wager.

If someone wants to spend billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars, but won't offer up a few thousand of their own, then what should we think of him?

Feb 5, 2009

We Don't Have Free Markets

Regulation of Financial Markets
02/05/09 - Cafehayek.com by Russell Roberts

If we had an "unregulated free market":

  • The banks that made stupid investment decisions would have gone bankrupt and be under new management.
  • The investment rating agencies that rated subprime loans as "AAA" would be disgraced, bankrupt and out of business -- no one on earth would deal with them any longer
  • No one could force bankers to make risky loans, as is currently done by the Community Reinvestment Act, lawsuits from ACORN, and the Justice Department.
  • No central bank would be in charge of the entire money supply.
  • - to make credit available at too-low interest rates.
  • - to create a permanent inflation that made housing jump in "value".
  • - to encourage risk by being a lender of last resort.
  • - to condone and support an over-leveraged banking system, where reserves are only 4% of loans outstanding, inviting constant instability.
  • No Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or FHA could direct trillions of dollars into unaffordable housing construction.
  • The government could not borrow $1 trillion for handouts to political interest groups.
  • The few elements of remaining capitalism would not struggle under thousands of pages of rules and regulations, and dozens of government agencies.
  • The little guy would not have to contribute his funds to a government that saves the incompetent and the dishonest from the consequences of their own actions.
We don't have an unregulated free market; we have an out-of-control government intent on looting us blind.

Leftist Arguments: A or B

Leftist Dual Models
02/05/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Shannon Love [edited, restated]

The Left has different arguments for different purposes.

Tobacco Taxes:

A: It is right to tax tobacco companies.

Tobacco use is the fault of evil tobacco companies, and smokers are their hapless victims. (1) Tobacco is highly physically addictive. People are largely powerless to stop smoking. (2) Marketing makes smoking so desirable that it subverts the choice not to smoke.

So, the companies are rightly paying billions (to state governments, not smokers) in compensation and are forced to stop brainwashing people with advertisements.

B: It is right to tax smokers.

Individuals freely choose to do something destructive to themselves and others. They can stop anytime they wish. Taxing them helps the smoker by inducing him to quit, and it compensates society for the harm that smokers choose to inflict on the community.

Social Security (SS) and Payroll Taxes:

A: Government payments to the retired are proper repayment of what was contributed.

SS represents a solid “investment” for workers. The compulsory payments are “contributions”, the same term used for private pension payments. Workers will reliably receive a higher rate of return than they can with private plans, because the government guarantees payouts. A worker will get back every dime he puts into Social Security plus interest. SS payouts are fair because they depend on how much a person contributes over his working life. SS is simply a compulsory government pension system whose benefits go to contributors.

B: Workers should get tax refunds based on their SS taxes.

SS is a regressive "tax" system that forces workers to carry the burden of supporting the elderly and disabled while getting nothing in return. The worker’s contribution to SS should be considered part of the general taxes he pays. These are not “contributions”, they are regressive taxes.

The analysis:
The only constant in these dual-model arguments is in who benefits. For tobacco, leftists get money to pay for votes and to increase the public’s dependency on government.

The SS arguments demand lower contributions and greater payouts, using contradictory statements.

Leftists choose which model to advance at any given time depending on how it benefits them, the politicians, and the particular political groups they identify with.

A Tested Stimulus Plan

Here is my idea for a stimulus plan. It will inject $trillions into the economy, employing people again in the hardest hit industries, such as restaurants, entertainment, travel, construction, and finance. This is an idea that has been implemented and tested in the past. It will work, unlike the speculative "trickle-down" stimulus bill now under consideration. It would place vital cash into the hands of consumers.

The government should guarantee any borrowing against houses, autos, and even future earnings, with low credit requirements for granting the loans. This would apply to both new and existing housing and autos, and the estimated future earnings of hopeful couples and serious singles. Building new houses would employ construction workers and materials suppliers. The borrowings against existing houses, autos, and earnings would be spent immediately for consumer goods and services.

Stop shouting. Keep it down out there. Yes, I know that this was the basis for what nasty people call the "housing bubble". The housing bubble was great! It worked well up until just recently. It was a period of prosperity and rising employment.

Read more ...

Our only problem is that the housing bubble was killed by having to pay back the loans. A few too many houses and pfft! the price of houses sank. We don't have to make that mistake again.

So, I will modify my suggestion just a little. We won't rely on personal credit. We will have the government borrow the money. The government will loan the money to the people as "tax rebates", to companies as "bailout" and "stimulus" loans, and to companies that will build new technologies that are "government guaranteed" to pay off within 5 years or so. It is not "trickle-down" when the technology is new, only when it is old. Government investments usually work out great and earn lots of money, I think. I should find some examples.

This time, the government will be doing the borrowing, so they can pay it back. They can get the money from the rich, who have so much that they won't miss it. If that doesn't work so well, I have heard that they can print up the money, so they don't have to pay it back.

Another thing is the multiplier on government spending. Obama says that this multiplier is 1.5. He says that $150 in goods and services is created whenever the government spends $100. Yes, it is a little hard to believe, that when the government buys 2 widescreen TV's, the government gets 2 TV's and someone else gets one for free. I like that deal. I'm a believer. I just think it is great that this works. I am waiting for the explanation to appear on BarackObama.com.

Let's do all of this quickly before those nasty people can shout "bubble" at us again. On to Victory!

------------
OK, I don't believe.

We have just emerged from a 5 year experiment in giant stimulus. The housing bubble WAS a stimulus bubble. The government borrowed through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan to people to buy houses (construction, consumer goods, appliances) and to re-finance housing to buy everything.

The $2 trillion in sub-prime financing in the last five years delivered dollars to the people who spent it immediately on all types of stuff. That was a $2 trillion stimulus.

We are living now in the "post stimulus" economy produced by that giant stimulus. How do we like it?

That was the result when people promised to pay it back. What will happen now when the money is being handed out, with no hope of repayment? We have only the prospect of higher taxes on productive people, or high inflation, and probably both. Tax the rich, tax the middle class, and tax the poor.

------------
Let's Counterfeit Our Way to Wealth
The Deadweight Loss of Taxes
Why Spending Stimulus Plans Fail
Posts on Stimulus

Feb 4, 2009

Democratic Trickle-Down Economics

Democrats Try Trickle-Down Economics
Growing government won't stimulate the real economy.
02/05/09 - Online.WSJ.com by Carl Rove
[edited] As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama attacked "trickle down economics" as "bankrupt" and an "old, discredited" philosophy that "didn't work." He was wrong. Even worse, he and congressional Democrats are embracing a Democratic version of trickle-down economics that won't work.

The House-passed "stimulus" bill, H.R. 1, is deeply flawed, assuming that spending $1 trillion to grow government will trickle down to help people who lost jobs. The Democrats' spending is horribly mismatched with industries that have suffered job loss.

Democrats want to spend $88 billion to increase the federal share of Medicaid. What American will be hired by a small business, factory, retail shop, hotel, restaurant or service company because of this spending? The answer is very few.

In H.R. 1, there's $41 billion set aside for school districts, $1.5 billion for university research grants, $2 billion for Energy Department labs, and $3 billion for the National Science Foundation. Yet education is one of the few sectors that added jobs last year.

There's also $4 billion for health programs like obesity control and smoking cessation, $2 billion for the National Institutes of Health, $462 million for the Centers for Disease Control, and $900 million for pandemic flu preparations. Health care also added jobs last year.

White House adviser Larry Summers argued that any stimulus must be "targeted, timely and temporary." This bill does the opposite. Mr. Obama pledged to "scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts." His cuts are unspecific and fanciful, while Congress's spending will be real and record-setting.

Discretionary domestic spending will have nearly doubled by the time Mr. Obama stops dithering and starts scouring.

-----
Worst Talking Point Ever Mike: We were supposed to create jobs. Instead, we've enriched the bankers.
Ike: Well, let's be proud of that.

11/06/09 - The Atlantic by Megan McArdle

McArdle: If this is the best the Democrats can come up with, they are in deep, deep trouble.

From Politico: Members fear their jobs are next.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio): Speaker Pelosi is trying to force her members to vote for a bill that the American people have soundly rejected.

Democrats counter that their agenda has kick-started a recovery on Wall Street, even if it hasn't trickled down to the job market yet, and that Republicans are putting at risk what Democrats have begun.

Rewarding Bank Management for Failure

Obama Caps Executive Pay Tied To Bailout Money
02/03/09 - HuffingtonPost via AP by Jim Kuhnhenn
President Obama, emphasis added:
[edited] We need a strong financial system to keep credit flowing to businesses and families. My administration will do what it takes to restore our financial system; our recovery depends on it.

We've got to restore trust. We've got to make certain that taxpayer funds are not subsidizing excessive compensation packages on Wall Street.

We all need to take responsibility. And this includes executives at major financial firms who turned to the American people, hat in hand, when they were in trouble, even as they paid themselves their customary lavish bonuses.

That's the height of irresponsibility. That's shameful. And that's exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else.

Read more ...

This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people rightfully upset, are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

As part of the reforms we are announcing today, top executives at firms receiving extraordinary help from U.S. taxpayers will have their compensation capped at $500,000 - a fraction of the salaries that have been reported recently. And if these executives receive any additional compensation, it will come in the form of stock that can't be paid up until taxpayers are paid back for their assistance.

I will restate Obama's analysis. Top executives at these companies led the companies into big trouble. They showed a disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions. They created a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everyone else. They paid themselves lavish bonuses as they drove their companies into the ground. They showed the height of shameful irresponsibility. We must act to restore trust in a strong financial system.

So, what does Obama do? He puts $300 billion into the custody of these same executives. Bush did it and Obama supported it. He wants to give them hundreds of billions more. Does this in any way restore trust? He says to these shameful and reckless executives "keep running the company, and here is more money". But, we are going to pay you less, only $500,000 per year plus stock options. (The options will only be paid after you pay the government back.)

Even this will apply only if those companies get more money, not the money given in the past, and only if they are given "extraordinary help" in the future, not just the usual bailout help.

This does not make sense to me. Why is he supporting the same managements that caused the problems?

Actually, government housing programs and policy created our problems. Bank executives joined into these programs, got burned, and burned us. But, government was the prime source of the bad policy and the temptation. (See We Guarantee It.)

If Obama believes his own words, he is irresponsible to invest public funds with these crooks. They should be thrown out along with their irresponsible subordinates, not just given a lower salary.

If Obama believes that the government is responsible, then it isn't so bad to support the managements and companies who were tempted into bad housing investments, along with government policy. Maybe the government feels guilty.

Che Guevara's Message

Tune in, Turn on, Get Shot
02/04/09 - AmericanThinker by Humberto Fontova
[edited]  Woe to those youths "who stayed up late at night and thus reported late to work at government forced-labor." Guevara wrote "Youth should learn to think and act as a mass. Those who chose their own path" (as in growing long hair and listening to Yankee-Imperialist Rock & Roll) were denounced as worthless "lumpen" and "delinquents." In his famous speech he vowed "to make individualism disappear from Cuba! It is criminal to think of individuals!"

Normally it's one .45 slug that shatters the skull. Eyewitnesses say Tony required POW! POW! POW! -- three. The executioner's hands were shaking pretty badly. They finally managed. Che Guevara, the man Time magazine placed among the "heroes and icons of the Century", had another notch in his gun. Another enemy dispatched, bound and gagged as usual.

Castro and Che were in their mid-30s when they murdered Tony. According to the authoritative "Black Book of Communism" their firing squads riddled another 14,000 bound and gagged freedom-fighters. Many (perhaps most) of their murder victims were boys in their late-teens and early 20s. Some were younger.

-- --
A Glorious Anniversary of Che Guevara's Execution
08/29/10 - American Thinker by Humberto Fontova
Via Big Hollywood by Humberto Fontova

[edited]  A former Cuban political prisoner told me: "Che's face beamed as the victims were tied to the stake and blasted apart by the firing squad. There was something seriously, seriously wrong with Che Guevara." Che often shattered the skull of the condemned man or boy by firing the coup de grace himself.

The young Ernesto Guevara wrote "My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. Crazy with fury, I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any vencido that fall in my hands!" Vencido is "surrendered" or "defeated". Indeed, the acrid odor of gunpowder rarely reached Guevara's nostrils from combat. It came from the close-range murders of unarmed and defenseless men and boys.

Rigoberto Hernandez was 17 when Che's soldiers dragged him from his cell in La Cabana and dragged him to the stake. He was a mentally retarded janitor in a Havana high school. His mother had begged and finally proven to his prosecutors that he couldn't possibly have been "a CIA agent planting bombs."

FUEGO! The firing squad volley shattered Rigo's little bent body as he moaned and struggled against his bounds, blindfolded and gagged. Che Guevara instructed his revolutionary courts: "judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail." Harvard Law School invited Che to speak, and gave a rollicking ovation to Fidel Castro during the very midst of this appalling bloodbath.

-- --
The Real Che Guevara
02/17/09 - Samizdata by Sol Terra

[edited]  The real Guevara was a reckless bourgeois adrenaline-junkie seeking a place in history as a liberator of the oppressed. But this fanatic's vehicle of 'liberation' was Stalinism, named for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, murderer of well over 20 million of his own people.

As one of Castro's top lieutenants, Che helped steer Cuba's revolutionary regime in a radically repressive direction. Soon after overthrowing Batista, Guevara choreographed the executions of hundreds of Batista officials without any fair trials. He thought nothing of summarily executing even fellow guerrillas suspected of disloyalty and shot one himself with no due process.

-- --
Killer Chic
Hollywood's Sick Love Affair With Che Guevara
03/2009 - Reason.TV

A video (8:30) about Che Guevara's influence in Hollywood. There are comments by people who have lived in Cuba under Castro, and in China under Mao.

[edited]  Gisele Bundchen wears him on the runway, Johnny Depp wears him around his neck, and Benicio Del Toro becomes him in "Che", the new, highly acclaimed, two-part epic film from Steven Soderbergh. Ernesto "Che" Guevara is the revolutionary who helped found communist Cuba. He is the celebrity that celebrities adore. Be it Madonna, Rage Against the Machine, or Jay-Z, musicians really dig Che.

This baffles Cuban jazz legend Paquito D'Rivera. "Che hated artists, so how is it possible that artists still today support the image of Che Guevara?" It turns out the rebellious icon that emblazons countless T-shirts actually enforced aesthetic and political conformity. D'Rivera explains that Che and other Cuban authorities sought to ban rock n roll and jazz.

-- --
AIG Exec Digs Che Guevara?
03/18/09 - American Thinker by Humberto Fontova

The article shows an executive from the bailed-out insurance company AIG, wearing a Che t-shirt at a social event. It talks about how the Cuban people have become poor under Castro despite massive aid from the Soviet Union.

The following quote is from Fontova's new book Exposing the Real Che Guevara.

[edited]  After a hard day at the office signing execution warrants, Che Guevara repaired to his new domicile in Tarara, 15 miles outside Havana and on a pristine beachfront. Today, that beach is reserved exclusively for tourists and Communist party members.

The "austere idealist" Che hadn't done too badly for himself in this real estate transaction, known in non-revolutionary societies as theft.

Cuban journalist Antonio Llano Montes writes:

[edited]  The house was among the most luxurious in Cuba. Until a few weeks prior, it belonged to Cuba's most successful building contractor. The mansion had a boat dock, a huge swimming pool, seven bathrooms, a sauna, a massage salon and several television sets.

One TV had been specially designed in the U.S., had a screen ten feet wide, and was operated by remote control (in 1959). This was thought to be the only TV of its kind in Latin America.

The garden had a veritable jungle of imported plants, a pool with waterfall, ponds filled with exotic tropical fish, and several bird houses filled with parrots and other exotic birds. The habitation was something out of "A Thousand and One Nights".

-- --
The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand
07/11/05 - Alvaro Vargas Llosa in The New Republic
  Via Big Government.

A long article about Che's life and deeds. How Che became a capitalist brand, worn on T-shirts around the world by people who know nothing real about their hero.

[edited excerpt]  In April 1967, Che summed up his homicidal idea of justice in his “Message to the Tricontinental”: “hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine.” Che spoke from experience.

In January 1957, his diary indicates that Guevara shot Eutimio Guerra because he suspected him of passing on information: “I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain. His belongings were now mine.”

Later, he shot Aristidio, a peasant who expressed the desire to leave whenever the rebels moved on. He wondered whether this particular victim “was really guilty enough to deserve death”.

Echevarría was a brother of one of his comrades. Che had no qualms about ordering his death for unspecified crimes: “He had to pay the price.” At other times he would simulate executions without carrying them out, as a method of psychological torture.

On the eve of victory, Che ordered the execution of a couple of dozen people in Santa Clara, where his column had gone as part of a final assault. Some of them were peasants who had joined the army simply to escape unemployment.

-- --
Che For Sale
07/16/10 - Samizdata by Brian Micklethwait (London)

Micklethwait collects many links about the despicable Che Guevara.

[edited]  It was not an especially startling sight. A fizzy drink named after a murderous Bolshevik who is remembered as beautiful, cool, wise, and virtuous. A lot of stupid and dishonest people worshipped him while concealing exactly why, and he died young just after being very well photographed.

By the way, it was most gratifying how quickly Google yielded up all those links. One of the authors wrote "It is not at all hard to learn the ghastly truth about this ghastly man". I Googled "truth about Che Guevara", and most of what I found was very good and anti-delusional.

One lady writer reports that Che killed dogs for fun as a child, which she saw as a sure sign of a psychopath.

-- --
Revolutionary Jerk
Fort Liberty by Will Spencer  Via Amy Alkon - 05/03/11

Ernesto “Che” Guevara was a racist who ranted against Africans. He hated homosexuals and had them imprisoned. He disdained both rock music and jazz and persecuted musicians. He burned thousands of books and murdered Cuban authors. His special pleasure in life was murdering young boys in front of their mothers. This is Che, the leftist hero.

Spencer also provides more links.

Selling Burned-Out Lightbulbs

A Market For Burned Out Lightbulbs
02/02/09 - MarginalRevolution by Tyler Cowen

The movie "Jurassic Park" (1993) and its sequels were about the modern re-creation of dinosaurs, under the watchful control of careful scientists. The theme is announced by the mathematician who is an expert in Chaos Theory. He thinks correctly that the dinosaurs are very dangerous, because "Life finds a way". Living things are going to find a way to achieve their desires, if it is remotely possible.

The "free market" is the name we use for thousands or millions of people thinking, experimenting, exploring, and linking their actions through exchanges of goods and information. They have more information and problem solving power than a supercomputer. The patterns and solutions that they discover are intricate and amazing. Life finds a way.

We should want to encourage and use this ability whenever possible, instead of imposing uniform plans and control from high above.

The following quote about the operation of the Soviet economy shows the power and humor of the market.

[edited] It is hard to imagine any market for burned-out light bulbs. But this market was entirely reasonable in the mismanaged Soviet economy. Light bulbs were rarely available to individual consumers for a new lamp at home. But, they were distributed for use in state-run offices and factories.

If someone needed a new bulb, he would buy a burned-out bulb for a small fee, use it to replace a functioning bulb at work, and take the good bulb home. The maintenance person at the office would replace the burned-out bulb and sell it.

A friend of mine who lived in Russia told me that there was another factor. Some lightbulbs were available in stores. But, a dislike of state-run business supported the bad bulb market. Many people so disliked their employers that they stole what they could, going out of their way to do it.

---------
Nobody knows how to make a pencil
The lowly pencil is the result of 100 years of discovery and development. The knowledge about its manufacture and ingredients is dispersed around the world.

Feb 3, 2009

The Benefits of Health Savings Accounts

Knockin' Wood: The Benefits of Health Savings Accounts - HSA's
02/03/09 - InsureBlog by Henry Stern

The Urban Institute doesn't like free market solutions to health care and insurance issues, so they decided to pick on the one product that is the most useful in reducing costs and insuring more people: consumer driven health care plans and HSA's. In reality:

  • HSA's are attractive to people of all incomes.
  • Those who need usual health care services benefit from these plans, which avoid costly "extras".
  • High deductible HSA plans have lower premiums than expensive plans with lower initial co-pays. Since the plans have higher deductibles, it seems more likely that those with more health problems (up to a point, of course) will be more likely to make it through underwriting.
  • 6+ million Americans are enrolled in HSA-eligible health plans. Their popularity is growing. Patients determine how much of their money to spend today, or save for tomorrow, for health-care expenses. HSAs allow patients to make prudent decisions for themselves.

Macroeconomics is Astrology, Not Science

Macroeconomics 'Experts' Apply Astrology, Not Science
01/30/09 - RealClearMarkets by Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University.
[edited] The inability of macroeconomic theories (about an entire economy) to make accurate predictions means that those economists do not know what they are talking about. Our leaders are being advised by macroeconomists, and they haven’t got a clue where they are leading us. Their actions may lead us out of the current recession, or they may lead us into a depression as bad as the Great Depression.

Franklin Roosevelt is often given credit for experimenting with the economy in a scientific manner. He did nothing of the sort.

Any experiment involving human beings has to be a controlled experiment, as in medicine. Half the patients are given the new medicines and the other half, the controls, either the old medicine, or a placebo. Then, and only then, can one tell if the medicine actually improves the condition over doing nothing (the placebo), or is making matters worse.

In contrast, today’s economic advisors to the President, like Roosevelt, propose to apply their economic medicine to the entire economy. This is astrology, not science. The professors of economics have no true, experimentally confirmed knowledge of macroeconomics.

The widely touted macroeconomic “experts” are no experts at all.


- -
Is Macroeconomics a Science?
02/26/10 - WSJ.com by Russ Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University

Fred:  Why did the Great Depression last so long?
Economist:  I just don't know, but I'm willing to guess.

[edited]  Which theory is the "right" way to think about the boom and the bust? Or are they all wrong?

I once thought applying statistics to economic questions would settle these disputes, and the truth would out. Econometrics is used to measure the impact of one variable while holding other factors constant. I now believe that we don't have data on too many factors. There are too many connections between the variables which we don't understand and can't model or identify.

We should expect less of economists. Economics organizes thinking about the complexity of the world around us. That should be enough. We should admit publicly what we know, what we don't know, and what we may never know. That is the first step toward respectability.


- -
The Economic Test
01/04/11 - Cafe Hayek by Russ Roberts

[edited]:  Suppose the economy does well this year. Say growth is robust and unemployment falls. What would be the reason for the improvement? Can any model of the economy identify the cause? It could be:
  • The natural rebound of an economy after a longer than expected downturn.
  • The stimulus finally kicking in.
  • The psychological or real impact of extending the Bush tax cuts.
  • The psychological or real impact of the November election results.
  • The steady hand of Obama at the tiller.
  • All of the above.

Macroeconomics is not a science and is not even scientific, because the question I pose above is not answerable.

If the economy improves, there will be much talk about the reason. Data and evidence will be trotted out in support of the speaker’s viewpoint. But that is not science. We don’t have a way of distinguishing between those different theories or of measuring their independent contributions.

- -
Why Spending Stimulus Plans Fail

Articles about Stimulus

Interrogation, Torture, and Rendition

The Necessity of Torture
02/02/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Shannon Love
About the use of threats in interrogation from WWII to the present.
[edited] Obama has decided to keep rendition and the torture it implies as part of U.S. covert operations. Threatening to torture spies and illegal combatants is a necessary tool.

The US Army in WWII interrogated uniformed German soldiers i.e. legal combatants completely covered by the Geneva convention. The History Channel reported about the most successful technique. Many of the interrogators were Jews who escaped Germany and Eastern Europe in the 30’s and who spoke many languages in genuine accents. The Russian speaking members dressed in Soviet uniforms and told the German captives that they would be turned over to the Russians unless they talked. The Germans knew full well that death by torture awaited them at the hands of the Russians, and talked.

The American interrogators were bluffing. If a German didn’t talk they just transferred him so he couldn’t give the game away. Without the horror of Stalin’s Soviet Union hanging over their heads, the Germans had no reason to speak. The information that the Americans extracted form the German soldiers saved Allied lives.

---------
The “Extraordinary Rendition” Program
02/02/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Lexington Green

An interview with Michael Scheuer of the CIA. He helped to develop the system of renditions the CIA used for terrorists, first developed in 1995 under President Clinton.

A rendition is capturing a terrorist, then sending him to his home country or a third country for imprisonment. The legal rules followed are surprising.

[edited] Scheuer:First, we wanted to identify the members and contacts of al-Qaida and put them in jail. Those in fact who had either taken part in an attack on the United States or who were possibly planning an attack. Second, papers and electronics were to be confiscated.

It is being claimed in the media that we had apprehended and hauled off people on the basis of some suspicions, in order to interrogate them. But that isn't right.

If it was possible to interrogate, we considered that icing on the cake. We just wanted the man and his documents. We knew from experience that aggressive interrogations bordering on torture don't work

President Clinton, his security advisor Sandy Berger, and his terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tasked the CIA in Fall 1995 with destroying al-Qaida. We asked the President: What should we do with the people we’ve apprehended? Clinton: That’s your concern. The CIA objected: We aren’t prison guards. We were again told that we should solve the problem somehow. So we developed a procedure, and I was a member of this task force. We concentrated on al-Qaida members who were wanted in their home countries or who had been convicted there in absentia.

We had to present a huge amount of incriminating evidence to a group of lawyers before arresting anyone. There were lawyers everywhere. In the CIA, in the Justice Department, in the National Security Council.

We developed our list of targets under their supervision. Then we had to catch the person in a country that was prepared to cooperate with us. Finally, the person had to come from a country that was prepared to take him back. A terribly cumbersome process for a very limited group of targets.

ZEIT: Why did countries want to cooperate with you on their own territory? Couldn’t they have dealt with it themselves?

Scheuer: They believed that only America was threatened, and that they would themselves only become targets of terror if they arrested suspects publicly.

Feb 2, 2009

Let's Counterfeit Our Way to Wealth

There are many reports that the Obama economics team is using a multiplier of 1.5 to estimate the effects of government spending. The theory of the multiplier is that $100 of government spending is supposed to "stimulate" the production of $150 in increased wealth as an increase in GDP. GDP is Gross Domestic Product, the total value of all goods and services produced in the US economy.

These links report on this government thinking, and offer interesting analyses:  MasonWhat Will Be the Impact of Obama's Stimulus Plan?
01/26/09 - Seeking Alpha by John Mason
  [edited] The Keynesian model says spending $825 billion will generate something more, as new investment and spending is created from the initial stimulus. The word going around is that the Obama economists are using a multiplier of 1.5. Thus, $825 billion in new spending and tax cuts are supposed to result in another $412.5 billion in spending, raising the total effect to $1.2375 trillion.
,  BeaudoinObama’s Bogus Economics
04/2009 - Reflections by Joseph Beaudoin
  [edited] The prediction of 3.5 million new jobs comes from a Keynesian economic model built by Christina Romer, chair of the White House Economic Advisory Board, and Jared Bernstein, economic advisor to the vice president elect.
  This model assumes a wealth multiplier averaging 1.5 for government spending. Mr. Obama would rather talk about these jobs than about how these jobs are supposed to come into existence.
,  RugyThe Myth of the Multiplier
November 2009 - Reason by Veronique de Rugy
  [edited] Two studies stand out: by Robert J. Barro and by Valerie Ramey on how military spending influences GDP. Both studies found that government spending crowds out the private sector, at least a little. Both found multipliers close to one: Barro’s estimates 0.8, Ramey estimates 1.2.
  This means that every dollar of government spending produces either less than a dollar of economic growth or just a little over a dollar. That’s quite different from the administration’s favored multiplier of four.
  Ramey also found evidence that consumer and business spending actually decline after an increase in government purchases.
, and BarroGovernment Spending Is No Free Lunch
01/22/09 - WSJ by Robert J. Barro
  Back in the 1980s, many commentators ridiculed as voodoo economics the extreme supply-side view that across-the-board cuts in income-tax rates might raise overall tax revenues.
  Now we have the extreme demand-side view that the multiplier effect of government spending is greater than one. Team Obama is reportedly using a number around 1.5.
.

Obama also believes that the multiplier for tax cuts is only about 1, so much more wealth is created when the government spends money collected from taxpayers than when the taxpayers spend that money. The idea is that the taxpayers might save some of that money, so it won't flow around and create wealth.

Obama believes that the government can spend so that its dollars go to people who won't save any of it. They will help the rest of us by spending it all. They will be doing their patriotic duty while they watch big-screen TV's and eat at expensive restaurants.

Obama's team is making this stuff up as they go along. It can't possibly be true. But, being in a good mood, let's assume that it is true. Then the following is also true.

We should immediately license counterfeiters.

Anyone who can produce good looking paper money should be licensed to print up as much as possible, after agreeing to give it to people who are likely to respend it immediately. That would be anyone working for minimum wage, the obviously unemployed, or even friends who would take the oath to spend, spend, spend.

This meets all of the conditions that the government likes for its own programs. There is no trickle-down; the money goes straight into the hands of the people who can save us. This avoids giving any money to the fat-cat businessmen who have let us down so far.

This money should have the same 1.5 multiplier associated with government spending. The money won't be saved, it won't go to the taxpayers (who have their own money), and it will get into circulation immediately where it can stimulate the economy and even create more tax collections.

Even better, there is no need to raise taxes to get back the money in the future, because this would create it at very low cost. The investment and job creation plans of the taxpayers would not be interrupted.

There is one catch. The multiplier is "only" 1.5, so it seems unfair to give the counterfeiters too much wealth. So, here is the deal. The counterfeiter would keep $15 out of each $100, using $5 for supplies. He would agree to give $40 to approved charities, and $45 to the chronically unemployed and underemployed. There is no need to be picky, because there is plenty more where that came from.

Here is how the wealth totals up per $100 counterfeit:

New Spending
  Counterfeiter   $   10
  Supplies             5
  Charities           40
  Unemployed          45
Multiplier effect     50  (on $100)
It's Fake Money     -100
Counterfeiter       - 10
                  ------
      New Wealth  $   40 
Every $100 that the counterfeiter prints up creates $40 in new wealth in the economy for the rest of us, after subtracting the counterfeit money (it is fake) and the counterfeiter's share. There is no increase in taxes, and tremendous support for charity and the un/underemployed. This is a win-win situation for everyone. Let's get printing!

Does this seem too good to be true? Yes, it isn't true. But, given the 1.5 multiplier, where have I gone wrong? Or, much more importantly, where has Obama and his economic team gone wrong? Maybe they don't care, as long as they are the ones spending the money. Real money taken first out of investment and jobs.

------------
Why Spending Stimulus Plans Fail
The money isn't free. It is taken from the people who plan and invest in productive organizations. This destroys jobs and lowers everyone's income. The money is then given to government agencies who increase budgets. This is a form of government consumption. Investment is turned into consumption, and job expansion is killed.

Keynes, Digger of Holes
No one should trust a theory that predicts greater prosperity from digging holes. Yet, this is the theory by Keynes that Obama is following, and many past presidents have followed, to forcibly change our society. We will supposedly create even more wealth in the future by wasting our current wealth today.

Econ 201: The Myth of the Economic Multiplier
Government spending doesn't multiply anything. It takes resources from taxpayers and applies them to government projects. You get a bridge or some paperwork, that is it.
  The "multiplier" from government taxes is actually less than 1. The government wastes resources collecting more tax, and the citizen wastes resources trying to minimize his tax. Then, the government spends the tax revenue wastefully, achieving less economic activity than the citizen would have created with his resources.

Posts on Stimulus

Feb 1, 2009

Hansen's Claims About Global Warming Embarrassed NASA

Hansen Embarrassed NASA
02/01/09 - PowerLineBlog by John Hinderaker

James Hansen of NASA is a leader in espousing the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). He has public credibility because of his NASA affiliation. His boss at NASA was John Theon, who has recently retired, and has announced his view that AGW is not supported by evidence.

Theon writes:

[edited] As Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research.

James Hansen was never muzzled, even though he violated NASA's official position, that NASA did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it. He embarrassed NASA by his claims of global warming in his 1988 testimony before Congress.

I believe that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system, because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.

Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. They don't explain what they have modified in the observations or how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done.

Thus, there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.

++++++++
Global Warming Caused by Humans is a Scam

The Fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming

The Greatest Fraud in History?
01/30/09 - PajamasMedia by James Lewis
[edited] The credibility of science may never recover from the Global Warming scare. Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered. Far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing political larceny here on a planetary scale. Why should scientists who have gambled their own reputations on this fakery ever be trusted again?

I’m not a climatologist. Like most scientists I rarely judge what others do in their fields. And yet it’s been flamingly obvious for years now, that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming violates all the basic rules and safeguards that protect the integrity of normal, healthy science. That’s why AGW (anthropogenic global warming) looks like a massive fraud, the biggest fraud ever in the history of science.

Mr. Lewis discusses a number of things that real scientists NEVER do. These are all things that promotors of global warming are doing loudly and repeatedly. It is politics or religion, but not science. Here is one point (it is worth reading the rest):

Bad data has been very widespread in global warming theories. Judging by past performance, it may still be endemic. Thermometers are placed in hot areas in the cities, and the data is shamelessly generalized to the whole world. The infamous “hockey stick” temperature diagram has been exposed. James Hansen has brought NASA to its lowest point ever by repeatedly endorsing false data.

In any healthy field of science, that disastrous empirical record would have discredited the hypothesis. But while the data seems to crash periodically, the models don’t change in their catastrophism.

+++++++++++++
Global Warming Caused by Humans is a Scam