Photo by dearoot
A New Kind of Curse Word
Privatization. Deregulation. Free Trade. These are the curse words progressives have been using to damn those of us who still believe in their benefits. This might surprise you, but my faith in the free market has been strengthened, and yours should too. Why? Recent events serve to solidify years of economic thought hypothesizing that free markets work, excessive government intervention distorts the business cycle, and there is a solution.
We Should Have Listened to the Austrians (and Co.)
Anyone familiar with the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle (don't be fooled by the name, it is easy to comprehend) would have seen this crisis coming. The Theory describes how government intervention in monetary policy creates and exacerbates dramatic ups and downs economically. The cycle begins with increasing the money supply and lowering interest reates. And yes, that means printing money and making it simple to obtain - not to be confused with wealth creation from productive sources like business. Hello early 2000's.
Due to having a ton of money floating about, banks need to find a home for it (since that is their sole purpose). Match this with government legislation encouraging loans to those who cannot afford them, and you have a petri dish ready for fermentation. Consumers are motivated to "invest" their money, but remember, such investment would not have occurred had the prior prohibitive (natural) credit conditions existed. As a result, there is a consumer purchasing boom, followed by increases in prices. Hello low-income buyers, house flippers, and immoral appraisers.
However, dangers of inflation are not perceived at this point because it is assumed the good times will never end, and consumers believe they are experiencing an increase in the real value of investments. Malinvestment (which includes Wall Street mortgage-bundle creation and resales) continues, leading to increased consumer debt. Savings are depleted as debt is attempted to be paid off and then a cash “crunch” follows. Hello hard-to-obtain loans for qualified buyers and paltry economic stimulus package.
Where We Are in The Theory Recently
Banks begin to restrict credit at this point to prevent complete monetary collapse. Interest rates rise to discourage malinvestment, leading to an inversion in the yield curve. Because of restrictions on credit, businesses and consumers must cut costs, leading to higher unemployment, loss of productive investments, and stagnant economy as consumers stop their buying frenzy. Today we are in the “cleansing” phase of the cycle, which would theoretically be followed by deflation unless additional credit is extended, inflation continues, or wages kept artificially high. Hello, the decisions we need to make right now.
The Theory Plays Out Perfectly
Today, we see the Austrian Theory of the Business cycle being played out perfectly, except it never seems to end as the government continues to intervene. We are on the verge of going back to step 1. Huge. Mistake. There are massive repercussions to bailouts, not just the temporary benefit of saving failed business ventures. However, the game of politics often eschews sound economic principles, creating enormous problems.
We DO Have Brains After All!!!
What citizens and legislators were wise to realize is that the funding for nationalization must come from somewhere. We are beginning understand tax collection and debt issuance revenues are not sources of fun money to squander. If a bailout passes, those who made the mistakes will never learn because they are conditioned to believe the government will always come to the rescue.
Food for Thought
In January of this year, Moody’s rating agency indicated they will downgrade US credit unless our policies change course. In January of this year, the Financial Times reported, “The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said on Thursday. The warning over the future of the triple-A rating – granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 – reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy.”
This is a big deal. Huge red flag - we didn't need to wait until last week to see the warning signs. Furthermore, if we load our balance sheets with total crap (i.e., the bailout) Our credit will be worth even less and we'll face a bigger problem than today. As much as some people think we can't afford to do nothing, if we keep bailing out these failing entities our US balance sheet will be laden with crap and our Treasuries will not have the secure ratings they mysteriously enjoy today. (Hey, wait a second, wasn't Moody's one of the rating agencies that falsely propped up the mortgage-bundle ratings? Wait a second, they wouldn't falsely prop up the US credit rating...would they?)
Tough Love
What is called for is tax cuts, reduction of the excesses of the federal government (which will only increase if Obama is in control), release of government regulation that created the boom in the first place, and allowing the readjustment to occur naturally and rapidly.
In the words of Ron Paul, "Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride."
A Crash Course in Understanding Economics
How I'd Solve the Economic Crisis
I applaud Congress for voting against that legislation. While I can see the point of anyone who thinks that bad legislation is better than no legislation, I'm a purist and believe the best course of action is for the government to stay out. I'm not going to pretend that solution leads to short-term equity, equality and puppies for everyone. It's going to be awful, but it is the fastest, and most efficient solution to recovery.
The current government solution will be worse, as it will be spread out over a far longer period of time with far less efficiency and some bizarre legislative add-ons. Besides, did anyone notice the $1.2 trillion dollar equivalent drop in the markets? Newsflash: you've already paid over and above $700 billion in ONE DAY. Who thought $700 billion was going to get this monkey off our back?? That number was chosen by a frantic Paulson in a mad dash to do something. At best, it is a shot in the leg to numb the pain, not an actual solution for the broken and bleeding injury!
We will see politicians talk about how globalization and deregulation created this beast, a species never before seen, and this time it calls for government intervention with bi-partisan support. A horrible idea we have seen before. The reality is that the Subprime Bundle Beast isn't different from other securities. It may have a far uglier face and will eat your 401K for breakfast, but it still functions like most of the species of securities we've seen throughout history. Let's face it, a malinvestment by any other name is still a malinvestment. We have a solution, if only we'd use it.
Ron Paul wrote a terrific piece on CNN today.
He says, "Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term."
He continues, "The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market...It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place."
I'm afraid if we let bad legislation like this pass we'd further commit ourselves to playing a grotesque scene from the Twilight Zone where no one has learned from their mistakes and we repeat the interventionist mantra as if possessed. It's as if the Fannie/Freddie/AIG bailouts are old news already. It's almost as if we're saying, "Why dwell on the past, when there are bigger and better behemoths on the horizon?"
Does no one care that Citigroup, Bank of America, and Chase are slurping up dying companies to feed their blood-lust for being too big to fail? Can you blame them? They are doing exactly what they should be doing with the knowledge that the government will bail them out. They are displaying a new breed of moral hazard in action.
*****************************************************************
If you are against the bailout, take action: call Capital Hill at (202) 224-3121 and write your Congressman and Representative. The Congress site has a feature where you can search by zip code for your elected officials and post your comments directly on Soapbox, a place to publicly air your opinions. They want to hear from you - it is their job to listen.
How I Choose a President
For What's Wrong with the World Wednesday, I'd like to share some thoughts that occurred to me after last week’s hotly-debated column. I also want to sincerely thank everyone who participated, even those who vehemently disagreed. You make me think, and that is the best part of blogging.
When I reveal I’m not voting for Barack Obama, I sometimes see people's eyes go dull (occasionally followed by rage). I can tell I’m disappointing them, and practically hear their hearts breaking. They cannot imagine I would not be swayed, as a young, middle class woman, by Obama’s platform. They cannot comprehend, when I have seemingly more to personally gain by voting for Obama, that I would not support him. I have to admit, Obama is charismatic, and is credited with renewing hope and inspiration. But, in what? It matters.
Fortunately, I’m not easily swayed by emotion when it comes to choosing Presidents. I don’t care if a candidate is articulate, good-looking, Ivy League educated. I don’t care if he or she survived wars, has 5 children, or small-town values. Taken alone, those qualities can be inspiring and meaningful, but they do not guarantee good ideas and are meaningless for my choice in President.
I know if I voted for Barack Obama, I might get some nifty personal benefits courtesy the government. Just because I can vote a man into power that panders to my needs and quirks, doesn’t mean I will. Why? I believe everyone has a right to satisfy their needs and wants and that cannot be done if I vote for a man whose platform largely rests on increasing the scope of socialized programs, and restricting individual rights to satisfy special interest groups, no matter what percentage of the population it may benefit.
What matters in choosing a President is simple to discover, but it takes a bit more time to research, learn, and decide:
1. What are his or her proposed policies?
2. What are the effects of said policies through every strata of society? (Not just the rich, or just the poor, or just the businesspeople, or just the farmers.)
3. Do those policies increase freedoms or restrict them? Do they increase the overall wealth and standard of living for society?
There are correct conclusions to this mode of inquiry for me, but not everyone shares a philosophy based in protection of individual freedoms, private property, and minimal barriers to trade and doing business. Some people believe in collectivism (sometimes masquerading as classism and nationalism) and begin with the premise that it is fair to restrict freedoms of those who are deemed to have too much or are using their resources inefficiently by narrow definitions, which I find discriminatory and reckless where public policy is concerned.
I believe if more people followed the logic or did the math, they’d be astonished at what they’d find. A glaring example I recently posted (and I hope you take the time to read) bears repetition:
From the Obama/Biden website:
Obama and Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. Photo by Luisimi1985
Obama's fundamental misunderstanding of profits and taxes is obvious. What windfall profits is Obama planning on taxing? For example, Exxon Mobil enjoys $1,400 a second in profits, sounds excessive, right? They also pay out $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs. $1,400 is their net figure. If Obama considers keeping 6.8% of profits a windfall, we should fear what he'll do to our pocketbooks. Furthermore, when a corporation's taxes increase, they cannot materialize the additional funds from thin air, it is taken from their bottom line. "So what?," you think. But think again; corporations will raise their prices on you, the consumer, or fire employees (that would be you again) to make ends meet. This isn't gouging, but economic survival.
Realistically, we only get two choices this election, and since I'm in a swing state, I won't risk a third-party vote. In my eyes, Obama’s plans will cause extensive damage in the long-term, though he might eke out a few temporary benefits. Since my ideal candidate didn't make it, my vote is going to John McCain this November, I believe he is the far better choice.
Read More......
How I Cut My Hair For Fun and Savings
The recession economy might be getting you down, but don't let it cramp your style. Your hairstyle that is. I've decided to take matters into my own hands; fed up with expensive (though talented!) stylists I now cut my own hair and I think it looks pretty good. I might try to post a photo so you all are similarly convinced. Also I have had my hair every length, so I know if I end up doing something catastrophic, the V for Vendetta buzz a la Natalie Portman will look just fine.
I am so thrilled with my new found talents with a pair of shears that I was going to do a video instructional type thing, but then discovered YouTube was glut with such info! Here are a few of my own tips and two videos I think any woman with longish hair could utilize easily.
My at-home haircutting tips:
1. Buy professional grade shears at a beauty supply store. They are quite sharp will produce far more even cuts. I also recommend thinning shears and a razor tool if you want to do some fancy layers or texturizing. Blunt ends and awkward angles are a dead giveaway you are a do-it-yourselfer. Plus, you can easily mask mistakes with a bit of razoring.
2. Cut small sections at a time and clip back the parts you don't want to cut, as hair has a funny way of moving around at just the wrong time. Not like I'd know. Also, start with something simple, like trimming your bangs or creating subtle layers by trimming just the crown section of your hair. (See second video below.)
3. I cut my hair dry. Apparently you are not supposed to do this, as wet hair is easier to control and provides more even cuts. I only do this because it is easier to know how much will be gone as hair tends to shrink a bit when it finally dries. You will figure out what you prefer, so it can't hurt to have a spray bottle.
So, after scouring YouTube the following two videos are my favorite.
The first is a girl who calls herself AhanBarbie and does her hair and makeup to Bright Eyes' music. She also has a wealth of tips on hair products, styling, and makeup.
Don't be fooled by the low-quality video on this next clip. This woman provides a simple technique and explanation for how to create long layers.
Barack Obama's Economic Plan: Will It Work?
Photo: RyanMcD
Disclaimer: I'm not a journalist and please read my FAQ if you decide I'm pure evil. Thanks!
Since Obama released a 2 minute ad on the current economic climate and his proposals for change, I thought I would drill down to see what he's got. Once I realized it was a rehash of what was already on his site, I was a bit disappointed. I was expecting some new ideas. Either way, here's the first few points of the plan I've dissected:
$1,000 Tax Cut for Middle Class American Families
Obama and Biden will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families, because the economy needs to be revitalized from the bottom up, not top down.Energy Rebates
Obama and Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company pr ofits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills.
Create Jobs through Fair Trade
Obama and Biden believe that trade with foreign nations should create American jobs, not send them overseas. They will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.Free trade: good. Free trade with restrictions: uh, not free trade at all. More specifically, Obama opposes the Central American Free Trade Agreement and wants to "amend" NAFTA to protect American jobs.
While I support his opposition to subsidies used abroad and tariffs, he is a hypocrite because he supports subsidized employment at home!
Furthermore, I call B.S. on Obama's collectivist mantras, he ignores the extremely beneficial impact CAFTA and NAFTA have/will have on the people of Latin America, whose lives and economies will be dramatically improved along with our own. NAFTA is the reason why Mexico elected an opposition party leader after 71 years under the same oppressive regime. How is that not good for the world? Obama opts for nationalist and elitist global politics. If you ask me, sacrificing the artificially inflated pay grades of American workers to help far more lives abroad is the real definition of fair and free trade; far more of an American ideal than stale, old protectionist policies, which is what Obama proposes. Globalization is not going away. If we refuse to adopt full free trade, there are plenty of other countries who will, and rightfully reap the benefits.
Create 5 Million Green Jobs
Obama and Biden believe that we should invest in innovation and manufacturing jobs in the growing clean energy market, freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil within a decade and creating 5 million green jobs.Green jobs: good. Regulations forcing companies to adopt them: awful. I agree 100% with encouraging companies to go the "green" route, but companies have to make the choice willingly, not forced by government regulations or sleazy tax advantages to companies who produce what the central planners deem best. This is a pre-cursor to socialist policy, I can't sugarcoat it. We need to leave environmental matters to the market for the most efficient and cost effective results.
The shocker of the plan? Obama will mirror his Advanced Manufacturing Fund on Michigan's 21st Century Jobs Fund. I'm not sure if anyone has been to Michigan lately, but I'm a lifelong resident and recent years have seen a slow and desperate decline in jobs, productivity, and inability to attract new businesses due to an inhospitable business environment.
My biggest question: if Obama can Biden assert jobs can simply be "created," why stop at 5 million? How many unemployed people are there? Why not create enough for everyone who needs one?
Read More......
Red Pill vs. Blue Pill: Does McCain or Obama Have the Right Plan for Health Care?
After leaving the health care topic in the dust for a few weeks, I'm sure you all thought I'd come to my senses and had put the whole thing to bed. You'd be wrong. How Obama and McCain approach healthcare are similar to how they will approach most of their other policies, so it is worth reviewing.
The short answer to the question is neither. However, I implore my readers to understand the severe limitations in choice that we have, so let's get started.
Barack Obama's Plan Highlights: try to contain your enthusiasm for Obama's glorious exercise in expansion of government power, regulation, spending, and inefficiency. His plan is like the Rolls Royce of collectivism and utilitarianism. Wait, Rolls' wouldn't exist in a classless society, scratch that. You get what I'm saying. I think the Senator is suffering from delirium or a gross lack of economic education, maybe both.
1. Heading towards Universal Coverage. Obama says in a New Yorker article, "...a single-payer system—a government-managed system like Canada’s...would probably make sense." Probably? First of all, no. Second of all, health care reform is not a game of wait and see, in particular when we have plenty of examples of failing universal healthcare worldwide. Obama has sidelined the single-payer idea for now due to dramatic costs to overhaul, but he is adamant this is where he'd like to go. For now, he will mandate coverage for children up to age 25 (unconstitutional since the age of majority is 18). I'm curious how all those low-income mothers with 5 or 6 kids are going to manage.
2. Cost-cutting is a (fallacious) priority. There is no such thing when you increase regulations and coverage requirements. Do not be fooled: some entity will pay those costs. There is no low-cost brain surgery, or discounted MRI. Although I've heard he got Isaac Mizrahi for Target to design some new hospital gowns and chic bedpans for less. So, how do you cut costs on healthcare? Subsidies (paid for by your taxes), price ceilings, and Healthcare Corps (a creepy new idea of Obama's where volunteers get some kind of compensation via the tax code, in other words: more government employees.)
3. Barack doesn't believe in freedom to choose. He is strongly opposed to individuals creating and directing personal Health Savings Accounts. He says that they lead to people purchasing more health care than they need and that the "freedom to choose" leads to "magnified risks and rewards." If you like where that came from, you can devour additional tidbits of 
incoherence in The Audacity of Hope. I think what Obama means is that when people are free to choose for themselves, they sometimes make bad choices, but that is not a reason for taking away the right to choose from everyone. Furthermore, for the record, the third-party payer system (where employers provide the benefit) is what magnifies costs and reduces transparency, increasing the likelihood to spend more than needed. Obama plans to dramatically increase employer involvement and requiremens.
My Conclusion: Obama better be the Messiah, because his plan is going to require a number of miracles to work.
John McCain's Plan Highlights: a serious attempt at reform. It is not the ultimate solution, but it is a move in the right direction.
1. Enter deregulation and free market competition. I can already anticipate those who are going to make some clever-yet-veiled-in-disgust comments about the free market and its failures. First, you are wrong; I don't have time to debate this concept - you either accept it or you don't. Second, McCain is keen on subsidies and quasi-regulation too, but just less than Obama. Moving on...when left alone the free market works to allow goods and services to find their normal price levels and direct resources to their most highly valued use. That means most artificially high costs would be reduced, although some may indeed rise if they were kept artificially low, but that is what healthcare coverage is meant to mitigate. You have to understand that a doctor's time, training, medical technicians, equipment, liability insurance, hospital operations all have a cost that cannot be lowered artificially. When you call a $1,000 MRI a $500 procedure, that's when you start paying $200 for a buccal swab.
2. Reduce the third-party payer system through a tax credit and increased consumer income. McCain proposes reducing the incentive for employers to provide healthcare - I know this sounds backwards, stay with me. Employers pay for their workers with a combination of wages and benefits, right? If part of your pay is in health care, and that requirement is taken away from employers, they will simply shift the proportion they would have spent on that care to your wages, thereby increasing your take-home pay which you can use to buy portable insurance. He proposes a $2,500 tax credit minimum to help offset the cost of insurance and the increase in taxes from your bump up in income. He even suggests a higher credit for those in poor health.
3. Buy insurance from any state! This is one of the best features of the plan. Healthcare is largely regulated at the state level. Those consumers who want a high-regulation environment could purchase from New Jersey, though they would have a much higher cost. Similarly, Kentucky has low-regulation, low-cost coverage. Today it would be illegal to cross state lines for coverage. Not only does this increase choice, but competition. If consumers could walk away from high cost states, those states would realize they are not going to get much market share and would need to reduce regulation (which would reduce costs without subsidies.)
My Conclusion: even though McCain's plan is peppered with questionable features I didn't cover here - it is less likely to dramatically burden taxpayers or degrade the quality of care. The freedom to choose is increased, and the most poor would still have access to care. It is the far better choice of the two.
In the Foxhole, and the View is Great
Marriage is a topic I find myself oddly passionate about, although if you are a regular reader, you know I tend to get riled up about anything, so why should marriage be different? I am married, and today is my one year anniversary. This is an event I find shocking because I spent years convinced marriage was a sham that only paid lip service to love, but was in reality a commitment to a life of misery and compromise. (Yes, my parents had a difficult marriage and divorced when I was in college.) While marriage is a huge commitment, and the only advice my father gave me was that it is wholly an exercise in compromise, it is far from a life of misery.
M--- and I call our marriage "the never-ending sleepover." Did you ever have that friend when you were young who you loved hanging out with so much, you would try to convince both your parents to alternate sleepover days in succession for as long as they could stand, take a day off and start all over again? Marriage is that fantasy come to life. M--- and I might fight over our sticker collections, but at the end of the day we still get to hang out together. Forever!
One of my favorite quotes about marriage has a source who I've misplaced, but for some reason I always imagine Dennis Quaid saying it. But nevermind that, it is still profound and one of the most perfect descriptions of marriage I've found, "Marriage is a battlefield, but the best part is that you are in the foxhole together." Absolutely. I have felt the attacks on marriage this first year. We were tested with trials that many couples don't have to face until well into their marriage. Mike lost two close relatives and I lost my father, all within weeks of our wedding. I suffered from grief and overwork and made the decision to dramatically change our lifestyle by quitting my full time job. These changes were not easy to absorb, but somehow we have managed get through with faith, tenacity, and humor; being ridiculously silly is our favorite pastime.
M--- and I peg each other as remarkable studies in paradox. We both think we are the most caring and wonderful people we know, yet sometimes we are convinced the other's heart is made of pure ice. Of course we've had our battles, but at the end they've always served to advance the territories we win over love and understanding. (I'll wait while you get over the nausea you no doubt experienced from that treacly sentiment...) Seriously, marriage is hard work, it's a ridiculous pursuit, but the rewards are beyond compare if you find the right person.
For what it's worth to those of you who haven't yet found a soulmate, Mike and I have distinguished the subtle signs we experienced when we knew we'd found "the one."
1. You become blind. You are not interested in anyone else. I actually felt repulsed by men who looked at me halfway-interested after Mike and I began to date. The thought of going on a first date with anyone else sounds horrid. You begin to realize you could never stomach re-telling family dramas or having to explain your sense of humor, "No, no...duck-billed-platypus...get it??"
2. The thought of breaking up disappears. You reach a moment where you simply say to yourself, "I'm not leaving. No matter what." You are not forced or asked to do this, it just dawns on you that leaving this person is an impossibility. When you get to that point, you set aside (or don't start!) the petty fights over the dumb crap that bothers you. You have to work everything out anyways, so it's best not to start.
3. You compromise, but it doesn't feel like compromise. You don't move to New York. He clears out his closet for your stuff and lets you put your floral crap everywhere. You stop bitching about his beard hairs. He learns to hug you when you cry over absolutely nothing. It works. You make it work.
What else can I say? I love my husband. And Boon, if you are reading this, your anniversary gift is below. I know it doesn't look like much, but it took a long time and a few favors to produce. I am not so technically talented, so I hope you like it.
Our First Year Together
All my love (and even my dog).
What's Wrong with the World Wednesday: Week in Review of Things that Pissed Me Off
Photo by **spaceMonkey**
I Twittered today that I don't feel like blogging (but thanks to some Twitter friends, I was encouraged to give it a shot, thanks ladies!) I haven't felt like blogging since my birthday, but I managed to eke out a few zingers I think. My lack of desire has nothing to do with writer's block, but overwhelm. There is too much shit going on personally and politically and I haven't the gusto to dissect it all. Instead, I'll highlight a few items I'd have blogged about at length if I were a better woman and call it a night, deal?
1. Illiterate people writing posts about Sarah Palin's book ban. This chain mail-cum-overly blogged about item is a total fake. Some of the books on the fake list weren't even published at the time she supposedly banned them. Whoa, she really is evil, she can ban books from the future! You don't have to be particularly astute to do a quick Snopes search. Such minor efforts can help you avoid looking like a complete fool. Seriously guys, Google works wonders for your average blog research needs.
2. Federal take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Let's see...the Federal government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the Federal government insured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the Federal government regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the Federal government seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then handed it over to the regulatory bodies that failed to regulate it, formerly HUD, now FHFA. I hope I don't have to explain what is wrong with this picture. Pssst, it's the Federal government...
3. I want to marry Sarah Palin and have her babies. Oh come on, it's just a figure of speech! Plus, there is a precedent. I know, I know, she's probably not into the whole gay marriage and polygamy thing, and we're both straight and happily married, so chances aren't looking good for me, but I like her. Better yet, today one of my favorite feminist writers, Camille Paglia, offered a far more palatable view than most of the feminist tirades that have sprung up in response to Palin's nomination.
She introduces Palin as Feminism's greatest leap forward since Madonna, and while she doesn't share my nuptial aspirations, she is not baying at the door like many women who share her feminist title. Paglia is a pro-choice Democrat, but she is wise to call out the media on their lack of substance regarding Palin criticisms. She requests more evidence of Palin's possible harm to women's rights, and for more ethical substantiation for pro-abortion views. She also says, "Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment." Amen. Or should I say, A-women??
Now that's a feminist I can take seriously, even if we disagree at times.
4. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal was Criminal, How is Obama's Plan any Better? Please don't write to me to proclaim that the 1930's and WWII brought unparalleled prosperity to the US. I mean it. You will only convince me there is no hope for humanity. Do you need more evidence that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal has led to bankruptcy time and time again? First of all, see item #2 above. FDR created Fannie Mae!! Her little brother Freddie was birthed in 1970. Both have long held inordinate market share over home lending, in particular for low income buyers and now they are going bankrupt.
What about FDR's other programs? Are any a success? Social Security? Bankrupt. Welfare? Bankrupt. Name a social program that had its inception in the New Deal ideas and I can bet you it's inefficient and immoral at best! Medicare/Medicaid? Bankrupt! Subsidies, price and wage fixing? Don't talk to me unless you know the effect these actions have on the economy. Furthermore, I don't care about or support equality when it leads to everyone becoming equally poor. Not a solution.
When the Democrats Get It Right (No, Really, I Mean It This Time!)
What's Right With the World Wednesday presents...
Last week's What's Your Economic Style? Quiz was loads of fun. I've edited it for accuracy, so if you didn't like the results last time, try again, and let me know what you come up with!
This week, instead of criticizing the Democratic party, I want to focus on something the Democrats are getting right again: free trade. Now, if only Obama would listen...
When Goods Can't Cross Borders, Terrorists Will
This phrase should be burned into your mind. Go ahead, I will wait while you repeat it to yourself silently. You have to fully grasp the importance of this concept, otherwise you will fall prey to detrimental thinking that presupposes this idea: protectionism, keeping jobs "at home," revising (i.e. further restricting) NAFTA, increasing tariffs.
When a man is not free to trade with his neighbor, or his neighbor or someone within his home country imposes barriers to trade, he is going to be mad. He will see opportunity stifled and will perceive said barriers as menacing roadblocks to improving his life. Once he is sufficiently weakened and angry, he will try to kill you and take your things.
Why You Don't Get Shot at The Home Depot
Would The Home Depot do well if they killed people who purchased items from their store? (Let's just say I'd short their stock.) No, they need your money to survive just as much as you need them not to kill you to buy their stuff. Likewise, if a country is trading with you, they are far less likely to want to kill you. Trade works to encourage peace, because you shouldn't kill your trading partners. This concept is so simple, I'm baffled that any halfway sentient being ignores it. Those who encourage protectionism are unecessarily frightened they won't get their fair share in life (which, of course, must match their personal criteria of fair).
They are unimaginative, except when it comes to their fantasy-based pay grades. They are not willing to work harder than someone in India, but somehow find plenty of energy to encourage unions and politicians to force companies to artificially inflate their incomes. If someone is willing and able to perform my job equally well for less pay, I'm robbing my employer and my antics should not be tolerated. This kind of thinking is what perpetuates global poverty, not improper wealth redistribution.
The Democrats Are Finding a Pulse
I know I give the Democrats a hard time. I would be remiss to withhold credit where due. You must read this Wall Street Journal article, "Free Trade Can Fight Terror," by Democratic think-tankers Edward Gresser, director of the Trade and Global Markets Project at the Progressive Policy Institute and Marc Dunkelman, vice president for strategy and communication at the Democratic Leadership Council.
Our tariff regime puts many nations in the Middle East, whose young people are susceptible to the sirens of Islamic fundamentalism, at an unintended disadvantage. This works against our efforts to stamp out jihadism. Fortunately, the problem is easy to fix.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) has taken a step toward fixing this problem, by introducing a bill, the Afghanistan and Pakistan Reconstruction Opportunity Zones Act of 2008, to waive tariffs on many goods from Afghanistan and Pakistan's frontier provinces. The next president should follow up with a broad, tariff-exemption initiative to help the Muslim world break its downwards spiral, revive trade and put its young people back to work.
Another compelling article, "Democrats Once Did Free Trade," offers historical highlights of Democrat Cordell Hull's opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt's detrimental New Deal policies, which are eerily similar to some of Barack Obama's proposals.
Hull believed that trade was one of the best ways to prevent a repeat of the carnage of World War I. He wrote: "Though realizing that many other factors were involved, I reasoned that, if we could get a freer flow of trade -- freer in the sense of fewer discriminations and obstructions -- so that one country would not be deadly jealous of another, and the living standards of all countries might rise, thereby eliminating the economic dissatisfaction that breeds war, we might have a reasonable chance for lasting peace."
Franklin Roosevelt named Hull secretary of state in 1933, but at first lent scant support to Hull's cause. New Dealers, believing that the government should manage trade and not free it, were suspicious of him.
Hull's efforts to reduce trade barriers were not a big success in his day. Then, as now, Democrats were divided in their support for freer trade. With Europe heading toward war, the secretary of state's initiatives were too little too late.
Economics is Not a Zero Sum Game
Most uninformed people believe that there is one big money pie in the world and that when some people get a big piece that leaves less portion for everyone else to share. These same uninformed people call the guy who gets a big piece greedy and likes to discount his contributions to society despite the fact that this man most likely employs many other fellow citizens and provides items they like to consume, like Macs or PCs.
The concept that when You Win - I Lose may be true in Monopoly, but not in the real world. The reality is, we can bake pies all day long. Wealth is created, not simply distributed. How sad and ironic that the book that pioneered this idea in its infancy is free to peruse on any internet connection.
Tell your friends.
Read More......