The news is coming in that the US has lost 3.3 million jobs in the past five months:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7981607.stm
Couple of things to note. For one, this is not the creation of 3.5M jobs that the stimu-less plan per B.O. claims will happen. But I guess if those 3.5M jobs are regained, will they claim success on that basis or do we now need to regain 6.8M jobs for success to be claimed? Regardless, what I do know, is that no matter what, no one in Washington will be held accountable for the $800 billion dollar stimu-less package. Yet, they cry foul when AIG execs get $160 million in bonuses.
Second thing, is anyone correlating why this sudden accelerated job loss jump started 5 months ago? What happened 5 months ago? An election of B.O. and other socialist cronies perhaps?
As I predicted in an earlier blog, increasing taxes and regulatory costs on companies is going to lead to one of a few things: 1) companies start cutting costs/jobs, 2) companies start raising prices, and/or 3) companies go bankrupt.
Businesses saw the writing on the wall 5 months ago. The stimu-less bill and early actions of the socialist driven B.O. administration and congress are proving their worst fears. Businesses have been reacting by cutting jobs. What's worse, is that prices will also increase now that B.O. and crew are printing an extra $2 trillion in money. Any lessons learned from the Weimar Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic)?
Massive job losses and inflation...direct results of businesses responding to a business unfriendly socialist government and a government that prints money.
Instead of rushing bills through Congress in 'emergency sessions'. Perhaps Americans should hold an emergency 'do-over' election and impeachment? It is clearly time to put some Libertarians on the ticket too.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Inflation in the B.O. Socialist Republic
The Fed Reserve is now going to print $1,200,000,000,000 to pay some of the US debt (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/19/business/econwatch/entry4877724.shtml). This just weeks after the "Stimuless Bill" was passed which will add $800,000,000,000 to our national liability.
Isn't this what happened with the Weimar Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic) which lead to hyper-inflation which helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler to take power?
Radicalism breeds radicalism. Tough times ahead?
"The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance." - John Maynard Keynes, economist, commenting on Inflation in the Weimar Republic
Isn't this what happened with the Weimar Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic) which lead to hyper-inflation which helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler to take power?
Radicalism breeds radicalism. Tough times ahead?
"The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance." - John Maynard Keynes, economist, commenting on Inflation in the Weimar Republic
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
America's Passing
I was thinking that one of the fundamental things behind the Stimuless Bill and some of the verbiage behind the representatives behind it are that it puts money in the hands of consumers. It's consumer focused. That is, put money into the hands of consumers, they spend, and that puts the economy back on track.
Such a stance has both blinders on to other real economic side effects of such a focus and blinders to the side effects on liberty and rights of others.
For one, yes...you can put money into the hands of consumers who spend it. But to do that, you take money away from consumers AND take money away from investors/savers/producers. The former reduces the net positive effect and the latter actually more dramatically affects the economy even more. You take money away from those who produce for the economy, invest in the economy, and provide cash for the economy....and instead give it to some who may have no capability to know how to manage money in the first place. I've heard alot of political wind about how some of their "economists" are on board with this, but I haven't seen ANY analysis about this. And the obvious side effects I see and that I know others see, need to be explicitly addressed in that analysis. Instead, we just leave it up to representatives who we for some reason think are experts on money and business. With such a huge amount of money being spent as part of the bill, that we're forced to pay, we have a right to expect some serious analysis. And if we have a transparent government process, where is it. We also have a right to expect that the analysis be provided on multiple levels, in laymens terms, and in rigorous detail for the interested. Where is it?
Secondly, even if this analysis were provided, the policy basically says the government has the right to TAKE money from others who would otherwise save, invest, and produce, and GIVE to those who consume. Now we all know there are more consumers than investors/savers/producers in the world...and especially the U.S. these days. But this policy basically says that these consumers somehow have privilege to this money over the minority. But in the Consitutional republic in which we live, over government was set up as a "government of laws, and not of men" per John Adams. As an "attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify."
Now, the President swears during the oath "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and our representatives swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." Because the constitution requires that they "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution".
But today, this very day, it is common and unchecked practice, and as directly reflected in the Stimuless Bill, to FORCE a minority of people (e.g. savers, investors, and producers) to pay for other people's causes and to TAKE money from these savers/producers/investors and give this money to consumers. And while this power is a power of government that the Constitution attempts to limit, it is seemingly without limit, to the current tune of $800 Billion and more on the way, that the representative who've sworn to uphold the Constitution, now ignore and flex power in the face of the Constitution and basic individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And it is with this complete disregard of the Constitution and oath, that these representatives commit an act of treason against the United States in plain sight and complacent compliance of the American public. America has died in our lifetime.
Such a stance has both blinders on to other real economic side effects of such a focus and blinders to the side effects on liberty and rights of others.
For one, yes...you can put money into the hands of consumers who spend it. But to do that, you take money away from consumers AND take money away from investors/savers/producers. The former reduces the net positive effect and the latter actually more dramatically affects the economy even more. You take money away from those who produce for the economy, invest in the economy, and provide cash for the economy....and instead give it to some who may have no capability to know how to manage money in the first place. I've heard alot of political wind about how some of their "economists" are on board with this, but I haven't seen ANY analysis about this. And the obvious side effects I see and that I know others see, need to be explicitly addressed in that analysis. Instead, we just leave it up to representatives who we for some reason think are experts on money and business. With such a huge amount of money being spent as part of the bill, that we're forced to pay, we have a right to expect some serious analysis. And if we have a transparent government process, where is it. We also have a right to expect that the analysis be provided on multiple levels, in laymens terms, and in rigorous detail for the interested. Where is it?
Secondly, even if this analysis were provided, the policy basically says the government has the right to TAKE money from others who would otherwise save, invest, and produce, and GIVE to those who consume. Now we all know there are more consumers than investors/savers/producers in the world...and especially the U.S. these days. But this policy basically says that these consumers somehow have privilege to this money over the minority. But in the Consitutional republic in which we live, over government was set up as a "government of laws, and not of men" per John Adams. As an "attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify."
Now, the President swears during the oath "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and our representatives swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." Because the constitution requires that they "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution".
But today, this very day, it is common and unchecked practice, and as directly reflected in the Stimuless Bill, to FORCE a minority of people (e.g. savers, investors, and producers) to pay for other people's causes and to TAKE money from these savers/producers/investors and give this money to consumers. And while this power is a power of government that the Constitution attempts to limit, it is seemingly without limit, to the current tune of $800 Billion and more on the way, that the representative who've sworn to uphold the Constitution, now ignore and flex power in the face of the Constitution and basic individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And it is with this complete disregard of the Constitution and oath, that these representatives commit an act of treason against the United States in plain sight and complacent compliance of the American public. America has died in our lifetime.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Letter to Wired Magazine Editor
Recent letter to Wired Magazine editor:
As a new Wired subscriber, my first introduction to the magazine left me shocked and offended. Honestly, Wired's January 2009 article "Science We Can Believe In" by David Goldston read more like an editorial from a communist Chinese or Russian newspaper, than something I was expecting from a forward thinking technology magazine in the United States of America. Goldston makes the base assumption that U.S. government policies that force it's citizens to pay for other people's causes such as science and research funding, is widely desirable. While I might agree with many of the causes, we live in a constitutional republic with basic rights for which presidents and politicians swear to uphold. Forcing its citizens to pay for other people's causes and special interests is not an assumed role of government with which I or many Americans feel comfortable, let alone feel is constitutionally acceptable. The second base assumption by Goldston is that presidents and politicians somehow know how to better finance and manage (via policy) technology companies than the inventors, investors, innovators, employees, and managers of those companies. As an inventor, investor, and technologist, I find this implication offensive. When the topic of politics and technology comes up, I'd like to see much more information on how technology can free itself from government controls and financing, and relegate the radical beliefs expressed by the likes of Goldston to the 1% occasional rant. Granted, I'm a new reader. I'm just hoping I didn't pick up a subscription to a tech magazine sympathetic to socialist and communistic diatribes.
As a new Wired subscriber, my first introduction to the magazine left me shocked and offended. Honestly, Wired's January 2009 article "Science We Can Believe In" by David Goldston read more like an editorial from a communist Chinese or Russian newspaper, than something I was expecting from a forward thinking technology magazine in the United States of America. Goldston makes the base assumption that U.S. government policies that force it's citizens to pay for other people's causes such as science and research funding, is widely desirable. While I might agree with many of the causes, we live in a constitutional republic with basic rights for which presidents and politicians swear to uphold. Forcing its citizens to pay for other people's causes and special interests is not an assumed role of government with which I or many Americans feel comfortable, let alone feel is constitutionally acceptable. The second base assumption by Goldston is that presidents and politicians somehow know how to better finance and manage (via policy) technology companies than the inventors, investors, innovators, employees, and managers of those companies. As an inventor, investor, and technologist, I find this implication offensive. When the topic of politics and technology comes up, I'd like to see much more information on how technology can free itself from government controls and financing, and relegate the radical beliefs expressed by the likes of Goldston to the 1% occasional rant. Granted, I'm a new reader. I'm just hoping I didn't pick up a subscription to a tech magazine sympathetic to socialist and communistic diatribes.
Friday, January 30, 2009
B.O.'s Hypocrisy and Rabid Socialism
B.O. recently was quoted w.r.t. business executives: “There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them.”
Biden said that he, like the president, was outraged by reports of large bonuses going to Wall Street executives. “I’d like to throw these guys in the brig,” he said. “They’re thinking the same old thing that got us here, greed. They’re thinking, ‘Take care of me.’ ”
This was stated just a few short weeks after a $170,000,000 inauguration and a few short days after pushing for $900,000,000,000 in increased government expenditures. $3,000,000,000 of which is targeted for the state of Virginia. Virginia's guv just spent $500,000 to pay for bus rides for people to/from the inauguration.
So in the midst of an economic crisis, $500K bus rides for an event is not accountable, turning us into a socialist nation impacting civil freedom is not accountable, spending a trillion of someone else's money is not accountable, spending $170M on a party is not accountable....but B.O. and Biden are outraged by executives being paid money by the companies and shareholders who decide to pay them that money.
I was wondering if B.O. would have Clinton-esque restraint and moderation, but his introductory actions and words reveal exactly what I feared: a rabid and radical socialist.
Biden said that he, like the president, was outraged by reports of large bonuses going to Wall Street executives. “I’d like to throw these guys in the brig,” he said. “They’re thinking the same old thing that got us here, greed. They’re thinking, ‘Take care of me.’ ”
This was stated just a few short weeks after a $170,000,000 inauguration and a few short days after pushing for $900,000,000,000 in increased government expenditures. $3,000,000,000 of which is targeted for the state of Virginia. Virginia's guv just spent $500,000 to pay for bus rides for people to/from the inauguration.
So in the midst of an economic crisis, $500K bus rides for an event is not accountable, turning us into a socialist nation impacting civil freedom is not accountable, spending a trillion of someone else's money is not accountable, spending $170M on a party is not accountable....but B.O. and Biden are outraged by executives being paid money by the companies and shareholders who decide to pay them that money.
I was wondering if B.O. would have Clinton-esque restraint and moderation, but his introductory actions and words reveal exactly what I feared: a rabid and radical socialist.
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Obama Biden Communist Health Care Plan
Here's the Obama Biden Health Care Plan (I doubt many people even read any of it):
* Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
Forcing insurance companies to provide additional coverage. Companies will either raise overall prices or go into debt or go out of business. The government required mortgage lenders to also provide home loans to distressed lenders. And we see the ramifications of that now. Also, aren't insurance companies already stressed financially?
* Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.
Tax credits (ala child tax credit and earned income tax credits) can result in money being paid to such companies from the tax payers. Thus, we're being forced to provide this money to such businesses whether we want to or not. Supports someone else's cause...but I doubt it's what most people would want to do. But if they want to...great, hold a "make a donation to your favorite insurance company" telethon.
* Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.
So, the tax payers are being forced to pay for health costs...whether they like it or not. Again, being forced to pay for someone else's cause.
* Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.
Dictating pricing and charging policies of insurance companies...a further stress on their already stressed situation.
* Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.
Forcing companies, in a down economy, to pay out more expenses will result in either layoffs, offshoring, more debt, or going out of business. GM is a large company. So is Ford. Do we want to force such companies to pay out more expenses and further stress their operations? It's no wonder large companies offshore work to China...they don't have to pay for their additional health care costs.
* Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.
Oh boy. It's "lets create another unaccountable government sponsored enterprise" time. That worked out well for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Can't wait to see this exchange burn our tax dollars. Maybe we should call this new agency Burny Mac.
* Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.
Same issue with tax credits...when it results in a drop below 0 in taxable income, it results in income actually to the tax reporter. So it is a welfare handout. So the actual tax payers are being forced to pay for someone else's cause and needs. We're not asked like a charity. We're forced. Biden doesn't mind because he doesn't contribute to charities. He'd rather force others to pay for his causes.
* Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market
One sound/kind principle amongst a Communist Health Plan.
* Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data
More expenses on hospitals. Will stress them out. Hospital workers might start job hunting now.
* Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.
* Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.
Too tired to respond to the last two.
* Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
Forcing insurance companies to provide additional coverage. Companies will either raise overall prices or go into debt or go out of business. The government required mortgage lenders to also provide home loans to distressed lenders. And we see the ramifications of that now. Also, aren't insurance companies already stressed financially?
* Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.
Tax credits (ala child tax credit and earned income tax credits) can result in money being paid to such companies from the tax payers. Thus, we're being forced to provide this money to such businesses whether we want to or not. Supports someone else's cause...but I doubt it's what most people would want to do. But if they want to...great, hold a "make a donation to your favorite insurance company" telethon.
* Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.
So, the tax payers are being forced to pay for health costs...whether they like it or not. Again, being forced to pay for someone else's cause.
* Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.
Dictating pricing and charging policies of insurance companies...a further stress on their already stressed situation.
* Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.
Forcing companies, in a down economy, to pay out more expenses will result in either layoffs, offshoring, more debt, or going out of business. GM is a large company. So is Ford. Do we want to force such companies to pay out more expenses and further stress their operations? It's no wonder large companies offshore work to China...they don't have to pay for their additional health care costs.
* Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.
Oh boy. It's "lets create another unaccountable government sponsored enterprise" time. That worked out well for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Can't wait to see this exchange burn our tax dollars. Maybe we should call this new agency Burny Mac.
* Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.
Same issue with tax credits...when it results in a drop below 0 in taxable income, it results in income actually to the tax reporter. So it is a welfare handout. So the actual tax payers are being forced to pay for someone else's cause and needs. We're not asked like a charity. We're forced. Biden doesn't mind because he doesn't contribute to charities. He'd rather force others to pay for his causes.
* Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market
One sound/kind principle amongst a Communist Health Plan.
* Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data
More expenses on hospitals. Will stress them out. Hospital workers might start job hunting now.
* Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.
* Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.
Too tired to respond to the last two.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Current Case Study: Why Communism and Regulation Don't Work
The other day, after the market tanked, the newspapers were reporting that US congress passed the $700B bailout bill due in large part to the fact that the market tanked after they didn't pass it the first time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7652112.stm.
Now today, after the bill passed on Friday, the financial markets are in turmoil despite the bill, and as some theorize, because of the bill being passed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7654025.stm
So a $700B taxpayer funded bailout involving communistic state ownership of private assets, and added regulation measures were put in place in a hurried fashion in part due to a market panic. Yet the market panicked anwyay. And yet we are now stuck with the tax burden, increased levels of communism in America, and more regulation.
If any case is a good example for why using legislation and regulation to try and manage a complex market system doesn't work...this is it.
Can we get our money and freedom back now?
Now today, after the bill passed on Friday, the financial markets are in turmoil despite the bill, and as some theorize, because of the bill being passed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7654025.stm
So a $700B taxpayer funded bailout involving communistic state ownership of private assets, and added regulation measures were put in place in a hurried fashion in part due to a market panic. Yet the market panicked anwyay. And yet we are now stuck with the tax burden, increased levels of communism in America, and more regulation.
If any case is a good example for why using legislation and regulation to try and manage a complex market system doesn't work...this is it.
Can we get our money and freedom back now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)