Archive for the ‘Poisoning Capitalism’ Category

Best Sentence LIII

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

The fifty-third Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL) award, and the first one of the year 2009, goes out this morning to Stossel for a nugget in his column “Arrogant Conceit” —

Planning it means planning them.

Context! We need context!

Here is the context.

Barack Obama wants to use the recession to remake the U.S. economy. “Painful crisis also provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people,” Obama said.

His designated chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is more direct: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”.

So they will “transform our economy.” Obama’s nearly trillion-dollar plan will not merely repair bridges, fill potholes and fix up schools; it will also impose a utopian vision based on the belief that an economy is a thing to be planned from above. But this is an arrogant conceit. No one can possibly know enough to redesign something as complex as “an economy,” which really is people engaging in exchanges to achieve their goals. Planning it means planning them.

Stossel goes on to elaborate. And a fine job he does of it. You should really click on the link and go read every word; if you happen to be a FDR/New Deal fan, it’ll have a shocker in there for you.

But…to elaborate on why exactly “an economy” is something that, by its very nature and its degree of complexity, defies the well-intentioned efforts of mortal men to mold it, shape it or simply muck-around with it, you can’t beat Milton Friedman’s lecture about how to make a pencil.

IT Predictions for 2009

Wednesday, December 31st, 2008

They’re gloomy. You were expecting something else?

Half of CIOs are looking to cut consulting-services costs, 35 percent want to reduce computer and server expenses, and 23 percent want savings on software, according to a Goldman Sachs survey.
:
The city of Seattle is using VMware to consolidate its existing servers, instead of buying 139 new ones from IBM. Next year, CIO Bill Schrier wants to use more of VMware’s so-called virtualization software, which lets computers run multiple operating systems, saving costs. VMware shares have dropped 71 percent this year before today.

Other parts of the software market, including SAP business applications and Microsoft Corp. operating systems and office program packages, may fare worse. Last week, Gartner cut its 2009 enterprise software growth forecast to 6.6 percent, or $244.3 billion, predicting slowdowns in those areas. That’s down from a September forecast of 9.5 percent.
:
While Microsoft will benefit from the popularity of its SharePoint software, which helps workers collaborate, slowing PC sales will crimp demand for its Windows and Office programs, according to Goldman Sachs. Microsoft spokesman Bill Cox declined to comment.

“I’m worried about every single vendor,” said Citigroup’s Thill. “It’s just a question of magnitude. The worst may very well be ahead.”

This is the kind of thing that made me wince throughout the year when people would talk about the technological Golden Age that would rise up to meet us once The Annointed One took His Holy Hand off the Bible on January 20th. Supposedly, the Obama Administration would peel back the veneer of dumbth and, with our battalion of bluetooth-earbud-wearing egotists packed into the White House, we’d stop banging rocks together in our little mud huts, and partake in the blessings of our twenty-first century Renaissance.

If this report be reliable, there’s no Renaissance ahead. There may not even be a chicken-in-every-pot. Can’t eat a unicorn fart.

My advice? First, take some solace in the list of worst predictions for 2008, because that’s what I’m gonna do. Predictions is predictions, they isn’t certainties — sometimes we need to remind ourselves of this.

1…A very powerful and durable rally is in the works. But it may need another couple of days to lift off…
:
3…Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are fundamentally sound…
:
6…Existing-Home Sales to Trend Up in 2008…

7…I think you’ll see (oil prices at) $150 a barrel by the end of the year…
:
10…There’s growing evidence that parts of the debt markets…are coming back to life.

Now those have to do with things being predicted good, and then goin’ bad. Except, I guess, for #7 if you’re a person who’s looking to buy oil products and not sell ’em. But predictions can go the other way — forecast gloom, and then become confounded as life hands you an unexpected bouquet of roses and chocolates. That does happen just as often.

And as Americans, we have a long and stalwart legacy of galvanizing ourselves into action as a direct consequence of need. When the need softens, we hibernate like big fat bears. We excel at adapting to the requirement of the moment. Once the zombies are all slaughtered and the mortgage payment is off in the mail and levee has been fixed and the foot fungus has been cured — we, The American People, can sit back the farthest, relax more muscles, flip on that idjit box that fastest, stick out that big ol’ belly the farthest, pop open that beer, and make sure it’s the biggest, coldest one there is…better than any nation, civilized or no, this rock in space has ever seen. That is what we do. We fix things that are busted, and once they’re fixed, we relax to such a masterful extent we practically melt.

That really is what’s been happening here. When did we really get disenchanted with technology in general? When it pulled this Chicken Little bullshit about the sky falling, and the world coming to an end because there weren’t enough digits to store the year. Everyone would have to hoard bar soap and banana chips into their backyard bunkers, and put a .50 cal turret on top, remember that?

When did we start wallowing in this modern, non-technical malaise? Survivor? Jar Jar Binks? The View? Britney Spears? Right about that same time. It’s been so handy to blame it all on that punk smirking cowboy George W. Bush — but he didn’t come along until about a year and a half later.

We weren’t being conservative. We were being fat and lazy. We were pissed off about that money we lost in the dot-com bubble, and besides, we didn’t want anything else invented because we figured it had all been invented already. Well, we’re still in that mode.

Maybe a good stiff economic crisis will be all it takes to pull us out again. Necessity is the mother of invention.

It’s worked before. In our country, anyway. Pretty consistently.

Think with high hopes. Act with low ones. Let every single new day you meet, as the Good Lord sees fit to let you roll outta that bed, know who’s boss — take it by the horns. And this will all work out. Really, it will.

And when it does, you better believe His Holiness At 1600 Pennsylvania will take all the credit for it. That’s okay. In government as well as in business, the Dilbert-pointy-haired-boss is a part of life. He’ll always be there. Ignore him, and do your best.

Hooray For Inflation

Saturday, December 27th, 2008

The video put up at Another Rovian Conspiracy just before Christmas is an absolute must-see.

Especially now, because what just happened to our country might not be so much a repeat of nineteen ninety-two, as nineteen thirty-two. And the notion that the Great Depression ended because of Roosevelt’s policies, rather than in spite of them, is now moribund. Facts are not kind to it.

It comes down to this: Pouring cream in ditches to rot, while a few hundred miles away, a baby starves and its mother’s body can no longer produce milk. Pigs are slaughtered and left to rot while in other parts of the country, a family sits down to soup made with rotten cabbage because there’s nothing else to eat. Policies like these aren’t part of some urban legend. They really happened. They were really implemented, because those boys in Washington were so smart.

This is the burden of a brain trust. When you’re oh so super duper smart, and you feel the weight of keeping that kind of reputation alive and going strong, you’re forbidden from pointing out the obvious. Every little thing that comes out of your mouth has to have this touch of irony to it, this “you wouldn’t think so, but Bob says it’s true.” You have to contradict common sense, to show how smart you are. Up becomes down, women become men, children become wizened old sages, surrendering your guns becomes an act of responsible self-defense, starvation becomes nourishment.

So in a country filled with starving babies, we pour cream in ditches. In a country where nobody has enough money to spare for the essentials, we create artificial inflation.

There is a phrase that appears repeatedly in Atlas Shrugged that I’m hearing over and over again on the news. I find it alarming that nobody’s taken the time or trouble to re-word it, even slightly. That phrase, just like the ultra-smart people, precedes irony — things antithetical to common sense.

The phrase is “In Times Like These.”

Atlas Shrugged is a story of society’s most intelligent and productive people, being requested to sacrifice themselves, by other people whom the prevailing viewpoint thinks are the most intelligent and productive people. (They’re requested to do this, right before they are forced to.) And so the phrase is repeated over and over again. There’s this mindset that wet has to become dry, in has to become out, and, most of all, self-destruction is by its very nature constructive. Common sense has to be contradicted, because this helps to show how desperate these times really are. Up has become the new down.

It’s a whole different world, one inhabited by people who have the reputation of being super-duper-smart and feel the burden of keeping that reputation alive. So they say dumb things to show how smart they are. Dumb, after all, is the new smart.

Sadly, the Great Depression, just like the economic woes that take place in the here-and-now, occurred on Earth. Right here. A place where up is up, light is light, darkness is darkness, and when a baby is hungry and there’s food around, you feed the baby. This love we have of smart people spouting unnecessarily ironic things, which the rest of us then dutifully follow to demonstrate our commitment to climbing out of this hole that we’re making deeper, will, indeed, make the hole much, much deeper. At least, if our present course is left unchanged.

After all, we’ve shown our capability for following this sad formula before. That’s where this so-called “Bad Economy” can really hurt us. By turning things upside down. Every time I hear that phrase, “In Times Like These,” I become further convinced that this is where we’re headed…because here on Earth, most of the things that make perfect sense in fat times, generally make just as much sense in the lean ones.

We Just Voted Out Capitalism

Friday, December 26th, 2008

…says that crazy wild-eyed right-winger, Arianna Huffington.

The collapse of Communism as a political system sounded the death knell for Marxism as an ideology. But while laissez-faire capitalism has been a monumental failure in practice, and soundly defeated at the polls, the ideology is still alive and kicking. [emphasis mine]

It’s good to have some definition attached to what the election meant, besides “hope” and “change.” It’s even better to see Arianna taking a centrist approach — she says marxism doesn’t work, and capitalism doesn’t work either. That raises an obvious question. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the answer.

If a politician announced he was running on a platform of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” he would be laughed off the stage. That is also the correct response to anyone who continues to make the case that markets do best when left alone.

It’s time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is. If not, the Dr. Frankensteins of the right will surely try to revive the monster and send it marauding through our economy once again.

“Our economy.” I wonder what she thinks that is? Keep those businesses shackled down, or else they’ll terrorize the regulators who are innocently doin’ their regulatin’? By transacting with some marauding bidness?

That’s a little bit like calling a gaggle of deer hunters a “wildlife preserve” isn’t it?

Instapundit asks,

…is it capitalism, or socialism, when you steal content from other blogs to boost your own moneymaking venture?

You know, that’s another good question. Arianna’s against communism, so she says, and she’s against “unregulated” monsters of unfettered capitalism. She just likes anarchy and theft?

Well, let’s show some respect. The lady does speak for the majority, since the election was all about whether to trash capitalism or not. More than one left-winger told me no…indulging in the mandated ritual of calling me a dummy and a moron and a poo poo head for suggesting such a thing. Obama’s no socialist, He’s just all about hopenchange.

Here’s the one question I’d like people to keep in mind for next year. I know it’ll be rotated to the front of my gray matter, and it seems a reasonable question to ask.

If we’re going to be taking the “middle road” by allowing capitalism to continue, but keeping it on a short leash, regulatin’ it and hacking at it to within an inch of its life — what is it, exactly, that makes the regulators different from the capitalists? I mean, they’re supposed to have all these attributes to them that makes the regulatory framework superior. Compared to the businessmen, they’re smarter, more responsible, more efficient, they care more about “The People.” They aren’t “drunk.”

What makes them this way?

I’m thinking about how they start out being different: They are supposed to be independent. That means they’re disconnected from the bottom-line of the business they’re regulating…which means, they don’t care if it works out or not. That really is the primary job qualification, right? So if a rule can be interpreted in such a way that the result will be detrimental to the business’ continuing survival, that brash, courageous, sober regulator will go ahead and ram it through since his judgment is so superior. This will be to the beneficial interest of — who? Whoever’s interests are opposed to the interests of the business being regulated. That’s the consumer? Consumers like to see businesses fail right after they transact with those businesses?

Uh…last I checked, a lot of this economic doom and gloom came from the auto industry. That marauding, unfettered, underregulated, Wild Wild West cowboy loose-cannon of an American auto industry. Hmmm. What’s your warranty worth if the car company fails after you bought your car?

So that’s one way the regulators are different from the businessmen: Apathy. They, by design, are stripped of any interest in whether the business concern succeeds or fails. The other distinguishing characteristic is inexperience.

Perhaps Ms. Huffington knows of some other distinguishing characterstics that offset these. Her theory would appear to depend on it. Maybe the regulators were born under a different star, that makes them more caring and more compassionate? Perhaps they belong to a whole different type of Holy Being, somewhere amidst humans, angels and djinn? Or perhaps there is some more mundane explanation — some other property endemic to the regulatory discipline, making them more responsible and sympathetic to the interests of…you and me? Oh dear, there’s another troublesome question. What keeps them accountable? If every little failed business, every little disappointing quarterly report, is evidence that “it’s time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is” — how do we know the regulators are doing the work of The People? How do I know I’m a People? When union goons and regulators are running our auto companies into the ground, and I’m being told this is somehow for my benefit?

Just some thoughts. Not too complicated ones…but I suppose they have too many permutations and moving parts to fit into Huffington Sound Bite Land. Maybe she’s right — regulation will fix everything. Maybe this coming year we’ll find out. But it occurs to me, we’ve been regulating the snot out of businesses for a very long time now. If that turned out to be the right way to go, wouldn’t we have figured that out right after the Tamany Hall days, and just stuck to that model throughout the generations?

Oh dear, there I go again.

Chrysler Closing For a Month

Wednesday, December 17th, 2008

Because weakness is strength:

Chrysler says it will close all 30 of its manufacturing plants for a month starting Friday.

The company needs to match production to slowing demand and conserve cash.

Tighter credit markets are keeping would-be buyers away from their showrooms, Chrysler says. Dealers are unable to close sales for buyers due to a lack of financing, and estimate that 20 to 25 percent of their volume has been lost due to the credit situation.

Uh huh. And all that sweet bailout money. Now you can tell Congress you had to pull the shutters closed for a month.

This is heap-big serious, for it stands a good chance of being the lodestar of all of American business, as the “bailout” becomes the way of doing business. We already have this with our business and personal income taxes, do we not? Show us your weaknesses. We need to figure out who to make strong, so show us how weak you are.

The Only Two Things You Need To Know About the Auto Bailout

Friday, December 12th, 2008

One — yes, it’s true (probably). There will be weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth if something isn’t done. And that something damn sure isn’t gonna be selling cars. History has shown the American economy can tolerate a lot of things, but it doesn’t tolerate a high unemployment rate very well.

Two has to do not so much with the bailout itself, but with us, and our reaction to things like this. When we have to act to save jobs, and the proposed action is something our labor unions do not like, the thing to do has very little to do with the proposed action. It’s more likely got something to do with coffee drinks that cost a lot and that you can’t pronounce the name of, American Idol, Survivor, and dogs-in-purses.

When our labor unions like what we’re thinking about doing, all of a sudden, it’s important that everyone be concerned. As in, it’s the first thought you have when you wake up, and the last thought you have when you call it a night.

I find that curious.

This is a situation that has been in the making for a very long time. People working on cars in Detroit didn’t have to start worrying about their jobs just in the late autumn of ’08. That’s when the labor unions stood to make millions of dollars from us worrying about it, though, so that’s when we started worrying about it. Labor unions are good at telling people what they’re thinking and what they’re worrying about. The rest of us are good at obeying. And so, all of a sudden, in the span of just a few weeks, we have a +++cough+++ “real” +++cough+++ problem.

Maybe we do have to do this awful thing because we’re all out of options. Let’s just not start thinking this is going to solve anything long term, though. And let’s not forget what this is really all about.

Obama To Revive the Sixties

Tuesday, December 9th, 2008

Hawkins really found a humdinger this time. On Huffington Post, one Stephen Mo Hanan has made the point that capitalism is simply beyond saving. An important message, since his viewpoint no doubt represents the same of many others:

The oft-prophesied collapse of capitalism is looming over our world’s daily supply of goods. The global economic system is on the ropes and must not be allowed to fail. So proclaims government, financial marketeers, tottering czars of industry, media mandarins, and just about everybody else who can pay to be heard. But since their efforts to avert failure have so far inspired little confidence, some attention might be given to Plan B. After all, despite its arcane procedures, capitalism is really just an accounting system, a way of ensuring that the world’s work gets done and that those who do it are properly compensated.

Now I’m not stupid enough to forget that capitalism is also a system that has allowed a substantial though relatively small group of human beings to amass titanic wealth and, so to speak, to capitalize on that wealth by exercising transformative power over the whole planet and everyone on it. If they were all wise and benevolent, that might be a satisfactory arrangement; they aren’t, and it isn’t. So any discussion of how human history (let alone human well-being) might continue after the demise of capitalism must get a good fix on the roots of greed and why it has persisted despite the abundant evidence of its perversity.

Ah yes…greed. The House of Eratosthenes Glossary says

Greedy (adj.):
An undefined word. If it does have a meaning at all, the closest one we’ve been able to extrapolate from the pattern of the word’s actual usage, is: Someone who manifests a desire to keep his property when someone else comes along wanting to take it away. A wealthy person who wants to stay that way (but you’d better click on the word “wealthy” to find out what it really means).

Mo Hanan takes a few paragraphs to say what he really means, but eventually gets around to it…

What if we began to ask whether corporate consumerism was really the ultimate flowering of America’s promise? For one thing, capitalism as we know it would fade away. But since it may be doing that anyway, we might be wise to drop our resistance and bid it a fond farewell. We could thank it for its efficient promotion of the Industrial Revolution, while observing that by creating an interconnected world it has rendered its own creed of frenetic competition obsolete. A satellite can’t go into orbit till its booster rocket falls away. If the accounting system is in flames, let it drop and disintegrate, mission accomplished.

This is the first part of his long column in which that voice in my head, screaming “What in the hell have YOU been watching, Mo Hanan?” finally subsides. I agree with him a hundred and ten percent here. Socialism…anti-capitalism…modern liberalism…call it what you will. It is dedicated to an axiom that whatever has helped us up until this point, is a hindrance from here on out and has to be jettisoned.

I live in a world in which fathers teach their sons how to use guns, even though in these times, you don’t need to know that in order to feed yourself. How to tie knots, even though you don’t need to know that in order to travel. How to change a flat tire, even though a service that will handle that for you, is a phone call away. How to make a car last three hundred thousand miles, even though you’re expected to trade the bucket o’ bolts in after fifty or sixty, seventy tops.

Mo Hanan, and those like him, live in a metrosexual world. A Twilight Zone in which yesterday’s assist is today’s burden and tomorrow’s toxin. He lives in a world in which we’re expected to provide payback to whatever has ferried us, rescued us, lifted us up from disaster, by casually discarding it. To reward life with death.

And his preaching is in favor of brotherly love, and against materialism.

Oh, the irony.

No, we share effectively only when we do so from love, as children spontaneously teach. They teach it not only in those moments when they suddenly share a prized possession, but especially when they share some unexpected aspect of themselves, the harvest of self-discovery. We could travel steadily through life making such offerings of ourselves, giving and receiving delight, except for being conditioned by fear to suspect the worst of each other.

Of course, living can inflict a thousand wounds on our ability (or willingness) to “love one another.” But with the advances since Bible times in our understanding of how the psyche functions, self-realization techniques are widely available to repair the damage done to our inherent nature. Why not make use of them? The world’s work would get organized and performed in a collective spirit of mutual assistance and shared benefit.

Mr. Mo Hanan, you possess a remarkable ability to abandon in a great big hurry whatever dollops of reality contradict this vision of yours, so I’ll pose this question as if you’ve not yet thoroughly noodled on it and it’s not a mere formality: What in the world were the last forty-five years about? What was going on since this vision first gained widespread recognition and acceptance, and the election last month? Was America just s-l-o-w-l-y allowing the lesson to sink in?

What was 1968 about? What was 1980 about? What was 1994 about? Could we have been experiencing the same kind of fatigue with the party-in-charge, leading up to those years, that we displayed in 2008 with their ideological opponents? Or were the people just going off willy-nilly, showing a mindless Pavlovian response to — aggressive marketing?

No, what you’ve managed to ignore here, and I get the impression you have an impressive talent for so ignoring, is the well-established fact that while the capacity to share and give and love is an ingrained part of this mystery-shrouded human psyche, so too is the ego.

Seriously, there is some thought with some horsepower behind it going into Mo Hanan’s column. I’m not entirely sure it’s all his…it has the flavoring of something ripped off from somewhere else, and it is a rather tired message I’ve been hearing over and over again, here and there, since my childhood. But there is some good thinking somehow getting injected in there. It’s just not very well informed. Someone has achieved way too much talent for expurgating ideas he doesn’t like, before he adequately checks ’em out.

Hey, here’s a fun exercise for you during your down time. Every time Mo Hanan talks about loving each other and getting along with each other in this new post-modern era of mutually cooperative human history, in your mind’s mind, insert afterward “with conservatives and Republicans.”

For a chuckle.

But don’t get too humorous with that chuckle. Don’t forget — there are millions upon millions of people who see the world exactly the same way as Mr. Mo Hanan. And they want “everyone” to get along and love each other, to be included. But their definition of everyone excludes quite a few folks, folks just as real as any other, that they don’t want to talk about. Their Utopia is a sort of modern version of Noah’s Ark, built from stem to stern for the express purpose of providing a shelter to an elite crowd…leaving the balance behind. In their world, “everyone” never really means everyone. And they don’t want to admit it.

And always, always, always…their plans for creating this new world, fall apart when the time comes to decide who’s going to be in charge. Because every face on the totem pole thinks it’s going to be the one on top. Everyone in their new Starfleet wants to be a Captain, and nobody wants to clean the Starship latrine. They confront the mystery and the power of the human ego, later rather than sooner — always insisting on the dubious privilege of allowing it to take them by surprise.

That’s why, as you survey all the gear that has given good things to you and those you know, from coffee makers to green (!) automobiles to the weaponry Mo Hanan hates so much, to nuclear reactors…capitalism continues to retain a complete monopoly on providing it. Every nut, every bolt.

So with all due respect, Mr. Mo Hanan, maybe we still have some waiting to do before we talk about jettisoning things.

The Aristocracy of Pull

Thursday, December 4th, 2008

St. Wendeler has taken to throwing around the Ayn Rand phrase Aristocracy of Pull. His explanation of the meaning of the phrase means a great deal more to me than whatever’s in the book, which frankly didn’t make much of an impression and probably didn’t convey the idea that was intended. Perhaps, if I started over again with Page One immediately after finishing the last chapter, I would have figured out where Rand was going with this.

My memory’s fuzzy and all these refresher courses in Atlas Shrugged take significant time, which I do not have at the moment. I seem to recall Dagny is not to be credited with this phrase, instead the authorship goes to Bertram Scudder, President of the National People’s Commission on whatever whatever whatever. The setting was Hank and Lillian Rearden’s anniversary party (Update:) James and Cherryl Taggart’s wedding reception.

We’ll see just how much of my senile memory remains, tonight. Or tomorrow night, or the night after…it’s not exactly bobbing up to the top of my stack of priorities.

But I do agree with Wendeler that the time is right for the true meaning of the phrase.

Just wow. Once upon a time, your corporate bank account balance was determined not by your ability to offer sales pitches to bureaucrats, but instead by your ability to build things and produce things. To cook up stuff ordinary people could use.

Remember that?

Now that the chapter’s been closed on that bygone era, I wonder how much responsibility the iPresident-Elect Man-God Messiah will claim for writing its obituary. Will He stand atop a pedestal and claim Himself as the righteous slayer of that generation of greed? Or will He blame it on FaPoBuAd again (failed policies of the Bush administration)?

That’s what I’m waiting to find out.

Update: It wasn’t Dagny and it wasn’t Bertram. It was Francisco d’Anconia, in the middle of p. 375. I’ll opine further later, because it’s a worthy thought.

And Wendeler’s right, we are headed there. Actually we’re well past that trailhead.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

This Blog Needs Twenty-Five Billion Dollars…

Thursday, December 4th, 2008

…or else it will fail, and take the entire country down with it. Hmm. Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue; not just yet. I’ll keep practicing.

Nope no bailouts for blogs. Not today. Nobody’s talking about it. Newspapers, on the other hand…

“This is the worst financial turmoil I have ever seen, not only in our state but in our nation,” [Connecticut] Gov. M. Jodi Rell lamented as she expressed her support for some sort of government/media salvation plan. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal asserted: “The newspaper is an information lifeline. It provides really an essential service.”

How about not doing it, and then saying we did?

Hat tip: The Virginian.

Best Sentence XLIX

Friday, November 21st, 2008

Dr. Clouthier is concise

I can’t help but thinking that if Barack Obama specified what “change”, specifically, he believed in, the markets would calm down.

Boortz is more expansive

The picture certainly isn’t rosy right now, and nobody can really explain why. The media, on the other hand, is certain that there is one recent event that is having no effect whatsoever on this economic slide; and that would be the election of Barack Obama.

OK … why don’t you try to put on an investor hat for a moment here. Let’s say you’re considering getting back in the stock market. You know that some stocks out there are at historic lows, and they’re bound to bounce back … right? So why don’t you just take some money out of your savings or out from under your mattress and plow it back into the market?

Let’s see if we can find any reasons why you might hesitate.

We have a president-elect who …
… has promised to raise capital gains taxes, perhaps even double them. So this guy is just waiting for you to jump into the stock market and make some money so he can seize a huge portion of it. Why jump now? Obama has been asked if he plans to go forward with his capital gains tax increase, but he’s not saying. Just hold off on your investments for a while until he tips his hand. If he goes the tax increase route you might want to consider trying to move your money offshore to grow until he’s out of the picture.

… has promised to sign the so-called “Card Check” bill. Now again, you’re smarter than the average voter, and you realize that this unionization-through-intimidation idea is going to have an adverse affect on American business. As soon as the bill is signed union thugs (organizers) will start their petition drives at thousands of businesses across the nation. Large businesses and small businesses. America’s largest employer, Wal-Mart, will be one of the first targets. You don’t know how far this will spread, but you do know that every business that is unionized will be a poor investment for you. So you wait .. you wait to see what is going to happen with card check.

… has promised to raise income taxes on the largest jobs producing segment of our economy, small businesses. During the campaign you heard him say that he would not raise taxes on 95% of small businesses, but you know that most of the jobs rest with the remaining 5%, and that’s where most of the new jobs would be created. The ignorant voters bought his 95% line, but you’re not that stupid. You saw through his rhetoric. So, again, why jump into the market now? Wait until we see what Obama is going to do with these tax increases on America’s jobs-producing machine.

… has promised more business regulation. Obama is no fan of free enterprise. He loves government. Obama believes America is great because of government. You really think you need to wait before you make your investment moves until you see just what regulatory punishment Obama has in mind for the free market.

So .. think about it. We’ve only scratched the surface here. We could also talk about expanding the family leave act and many other little federal anti-business goodies. Invest now? Why? Doesn’t it make more sense to wait until you get a true measure of our new anti-capitalist president?

As many words as he used, Boortz missed one that’s on my mind a bit lately.

The dialog President-elect Obama really wants to start, it seems, is one He isn’t quite ready to admit He’s willing to start, let alone admit that He is exuberant about starting it.

And that dialog has to do with whether or not the time has come to give up on capitalism.

A casual observer of everday news should be able to tell you that if He is ever backed into a corner about this lawn-dart motion the market is doing, He will just lapse into a litany about FaPoBuAd (failed policies of the Bush administration). (Thanks, small-tee-tim the godless heathen!) A more curious, conscientious and thoughtful follower of our national events will figure out the iPresident-elect Man-God is just about as enthusiastic about capitalism and free enterprise, as He is about the country He is about to start ruling. Which is to say, not very much at all.

He’ll blame the market for the problems He and His kind have caused.

(“His kind.” Can I say that? Only one way to find out, I s’pose…)

We’ve already seen it with the subprime mess. He’s a community organizer; He brags about being a community organizer; community organizers browbeat banks into making bad loans; bad loan paper caused the subprime sinkhole. And now that the whole scenario has played out He wants to blame it on free entrprise running around all half-cocked, like a little kid with a children’s menu failing to keep his crayon inside the lines or something.

So with a friendly congress, we’re bound to see some more regulation…of the very kind that made the problem in the first place.

As Neal points out, investors aren’t like ordinary voters. They tend to understand cause and effect. They have to; you must believe in cause-and-effect in order to be an investor, otherwise, to you it’s nothing more than a gamble. I suppose there may be an investor here & there who sees it that way. But that isn’t descriptive of the ones who make the real money. They need to see some concrete reasons why their dollars are likely to come back, with some extra, before they send those dollars anywhere.

So for the time being, it just isn’t happening.

Oh well. Blame Bush. It’s always been an easy thing for the flaccid mind.

D’JEver Notice? XVII

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

Republicans lose voters (H/T: Frank, who thinks this guy’s delusional, and I agree) with their evil stupid plans to force women to have abortions, to keep paraplegics like Christopher Reeve in their wheelchairs, and to assert the will of an elite cultist relition over their entire country by means of theocratic rule.

The democrats lose votes with their evil stupid plans to inject pointlessness into things…like making money…following the law…defending the country. Every little thing anybody can do — except oppose Republicans — they want to make a little bit tougher, a little bit less rewarding.

I know this about Republicans because I read it in smartass backwoods newspaper columns like the one linked above.

I know this about democrats because people actually talk about it. Joe The Plumber isn’t the first one I’ve heard raising this obvious point: If I want to buy a business and hire employees, and President Obama is going to raise my taxes, what’s the freakin’ point? What’s the point of doing anything? Why follow immigration laws, why hire people, why get married, why buy a house.

As for whether they want to do these things, I know the democrats want to do what I think they want to do because they tell me so.

I’m not sure Republicans really want to do the things attributed to them. Not a hundred percent. Because when the accusation is directed at them, and then someone justifies it, they always have to invent something on the spot to make it complete. A big chunk of it is always pulled out of thin air. I’ve not heard a Republican presidential candidate say “when you force women to have babies, it’s good for everybody!” I’ve not heard one say “when you force everyone to be protestant, it’s good for everybody!” I’ve not heard one say “when you make old people choose between their last drug prescription and the next can of pet food they have to eat for dinner, it’s good for everybody!”

In other words — wowee, those Republicans sure sound foolish and dangerous, when I pretend they said things they didn’t say.

But I know damn good and well what Barack Obama said about spreading the wealth around. It wasn’t the first time I heard that, either. There’s no need to pull that out of anywhere. They’re saying they want to do it.

We’re a funny people. We pretend to be so centrist, objective and balanced. But we debate the awful horrible fictitious things Republicans are going to do if we leave them in charge…that they haven’t done, even though they’ve been in charge…versus, the idiotic things democrats do every single time they’re in charge, without fail, that with a casual skimming through the pages of recent history, we’d know haven’t worked out too well for us. If we were willing to put in the time or energy to do it.

Goin’ John Galt

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

Dr. Helen discusses the ramifications with Roger Simon and Bill Whittle. This is somewhat valuable as your video-Cliff’s-notes for Atlas Shrugged, if you haven’t read it already. Which you should, of course.

Yeah you have to install an ActiveX control, and they use the word basically quite a lot…which I hate. But it’s a clip far more educational than most.

D’JEver Notice? XIV

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

Think of this as an extension of D’JEver Notice? I, in which I made the point that each one of the industries that have “let us down,” if you take the time to inspect how that industry works and how it has morphed in recent history, you find it fails to stand as an example of the weaknesses of capitalism because it no longer adheres to any capitalist model. You have education, healthcare, the world oil market, and — since I wrote that above installment, which has turned out to be prescient — we’ve had this huge ol’ dealy-do with the subprime lending mess.

Capitalism didn’t create those problems. It didn’t leave us; we left it. We started messing around with some cross-breeding against the marxist way of life and that is when the real problems started.

Big Red FlagNow there’s an election upon us in which we get to figure out an answer to the central question: Are we ready to give up on capitalism? Are we ready to put the socialists in charge of our government, unopposed, when they aren’t even ready to admit they’re socialists? And it occurs to me:

Capitalism is “failing” because we have seen it fall short of a standard that is so inherently silly, we cannot even say what it is, out loud, and still preserve a healthy, decent sense of shame. That standard is this:

To motivate all those involved in a financial transaction, to act in the interests of other parties similarly involved, to the detriment of their own.

And here, I’m specifically calling out those “Wall Street traders” who sold those Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) to suckers, along with the banks that made those bad loans in the first place that later on were packaged into these SIVs. That’s your failure of capitalism, there; people failed to look out for one another because we had this “Wild, Wild West” thing going on in the lending industry. Capitalism unfettered and running amok.

To make this look like the Wild West, you’d have to have a very special Wild West. Basically, you’d have to have the Marshal acting as a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE), sitting on a huge sack of gold bullion. Sort of insuring the town saloon — if Frank Miller shows up on the noon train and starts smashing up the town saloon, the Marshal would have his bag of gold ready. Except he wouldn’t offer a settlement to the saloon owner to replace his big ol’ bar mirror he bought in St. Louis. No, he’d be giving the gold bullion to Frank Miller for smashing up the saloon.

See, the government’s standing behind these bad loans…that’s the genesis of the problem. Now, the bank has to make bad loans. It would be irresponsible of the bank not to. Look at all that free money from the government just waiting to be snatched up out there. That isn’t capitalism.

But anyway. The point is, socialism…which is running for President in six days, and true to form, is afraid to call itself socialism…also has a thoroughly miserable job of living up to this impossible standard. Motivating people to engage in transactions, looking out for everyone else. It doesn’t succeed at this any better than capitalism does. The difference is, a) unlike capitalism, socialism is internally structured to count on meeting this impossible goal; and b) unlike capitalism, when socialism fails to meet this impossible goal, we have a lot of people running around who don’t remember. Seems the folks who suffer from the shortest memories have the loudest voices about this.

In my opinion, Barry O needs to get his talking points in order. Right now, the issue that confronts him is that the people who don’t want to see him win, are making the point Barack Obama wants us to become a socialist country and socialism doesn’t work! And the Obama/Biden campaign has responded with two rejoinders that really should put us in our place:

No he isn’t…

…and…Yes it does.

I know he’s all hopey-changey and makes the leg tingle, etc. But shouldn’t voters at least press him to pick one of those two mutually exclusive responses? No I’m not, and Yes it does. He’s supposed to be so clean and articulate and he likes to use the cliche “Let’s be clear” a lot. Fine. So be clear.

Is an Obama presidency all about giving up on capitalism, or not?

Image credit: Yet another outstanding cartoon resource linked by Rick.

Spooky Left-Wing Economics

Saturday, October 25th, 2008

“Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle — the principle of the public good.”

“Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good at the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be for their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it — well, so does any burglar. There is only one difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.” [emphasis mine]

— Atlas Shrugged, p. 442 (35th anniv. reprint ed., Signet)

CartoonSo Rick links to a story about Henry Rearden, oh I mean Joe The Plumber, and how JTP is fearing for the future of our country. Good fear to have; I share it. And, by the by, he complements it with the cartoon you see to the right.

Zossima, the local liberal gadfly, indulges in his long-supported habit of saying…his stuff…I think the least I can do is whatever I can to ensure his words achieve greater visibility. It is the very least I can do.

…I’ll go along with any plan you guys propose as long as you have a real solution for dealing with the deficit. Kinda funny thing you might want to take your head out of your kiester to notice: $11 trillion in US federal gov’t debt is largely due to the tax and economic policies of Reagan and two Bushes. Clinton balanced the budget and brought prosperity. I’m just sayin’…

Okay. So the subject under discussion is liberals with their little “Robin Hood” schtick and how much that fowls things up. Zossima wants to talk about the deficit. Okay…we’re going to tax the snot out of people who actually make the jobs in our country, who make business actually happen — because that’s the only way we can “deal…with the deficit.”

So I couldn’t help but wonder

Great point, Zossima.

So if spreading the wealth around will bring down this public debt you want to discuss (as opposed to the subject at hand), how come nobody’s been able to make it work that way?

You’re so smart and you make things so simple. This should be an easy question for you.

Zossima comes back, and boy, he really puts me in my place. The answer was so obvious, I don’t know how it ever got past me. I feel like Luke Wilson in Idiocracy, you know, when he got in the wrong line at the prison…just the biggest dumbass…

Huh, lessee, the simple mind asks for a simple answer. Well, under Clinton, taxes were increased. And under Clinton, we had economic prosperity and a balanced budget. Under Reagan, Bush the elder, and Bush the doofus, taxes were decreased, deficits soared, and we are now on the brink of economic ruin.

Well then. Allow me to retort.

Bzzzt! WRONG! Sorry, try again. When Clinton came to office, the public debt held by our government was somewhere around 4.1 to 4.2 trillion. When he left it was up around 5.7 trillion.

So back to my question. When did it work?

If you check out that link, you’ll see Rick found the hard data derived from what I had referenced before getting into it…you’ll also see where I call out this difference between public debt, which is a balance sheet item, and this budget deficit thing which is a year-to-year statistic, commonly confused with public debt to make democrats look good.

But try this. Go look up the statistics for the public debt of our government. How it’s carried from one year to the next; how it goes up, how it goes down. You’ll see it’s spun out of control, regularly, since the founding of the nation.

When does it spin out of control?

When a Republican is in the White House?

When a democrat is in the White House?

When the Republicans run Congress?

When democrats run Congress? When the democrat party comes up with bold, new, innovative social programs?

No, no, no, no and no.

It’s WAR, stupid.

Wars are expensive. Cold wars and hot wars. And lately, when a Republican becomes President, the public debt spins out of control if & when there is a war on. Not quite so much when there’s a democrat President.

Is that because democrats know how to deal with finances and debt? Hah. Tell me another. Nobody, who’s paid the slightest bit of attention, can possibly take it seriously that democrats have anything to do with fiscal restraint. They don’t. It’s the wars. Republicans go ahead and deal with what’s going on, in the here-and-now; democrats put things off until some other time that might turn out to be more convenient (when a Republican can take the fall for things). So yes. Our public debt explodes when a Republican is in office, so that smaller wars can be fought at that time, when they need to be fought — rather than be allowed to putrify and become gigantic wars for someone else to deal with.

Which would, then, explode our nation’s debt anyway.

Like it or not, that’s the history of our nation. Back to the very beginning.

But back to the subject immediately under discussion —

Economics is all about cause and effect. I get that these wonderful liberal Presidents like Carter, Clinton and Obama are cause, and a “balanced budget” is the effect…lots of leftist twits have told me so…nobody’s been able to draw a line logically connecting the two together. They can’t. You don’t jump-start an economy by making it more expensive to buy goods and services.

You don’t create jobs by making it more expensive to provide those jobs.

You don’t bring down the price of a company’s products by making it more expensive for that company to bring products to market.

This stuff isn’t debated often, because there simply isn’t a debate to have about it. It’s math. Simple, third-grade math.

Imitation is the Sincerest Form XXIII

Friday, October 24th, 2008

Daniel J. Summers liked Rick’s cartoon, so he swiped it shamelessly, and gave us the credit for it. That’s the nature of blogging, of course; we did the same, offering credit to Rick but not to Cadillac Tight, or Exhibit A Press.

He throws in a great link, by one of our favorite columnists, Neal Boortz. It’s a letter to the undecided voter. If it wasn’t destined to fail in what it is trying to do, I’d call it the most important letter anyone’s written this year…maybe this decade. At this point, however, my optimism is somewhere between flickering and snuffed. Buy gold.

Then he lays the smackdown. Nothing outside of what I’d noticed, about a week ago — indeed, what he’s doing is giving me credit for talking about it, of which I don’t know I’m deserving because at the time I wasn’t the only one talking about it. It was being played up as some kind of phony-baloney Joe The Plumber scandal.

Joe the Plumber does not make 250,000 dollars a year. He doesn’t even make close to that.

He just wants to.

This does not detract from my admiration for the real Joe the Plumber. It doesn’t change my desire for people to pull the “I Am Spartacus” thing with Joe.

Quite to the contrary, I think that’s thirty tons of awesome.

After a week of cooling-down and thinking about other things, I’ve noticed a new wrinkle about this Joe The Plumber thing that was unnoticed before. Or, more likely, noticed but un-commented-upon. I find it worthy of comment.

Invited to address the Joe The Plumber thing during the third Presidential debate, Sen. Obama said

Now, the conversation I had with Joe the plumber, what I essentially said to him was, “Five years ago, when you were in a position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then.”

And what I want to do is to make sure that the plumber, the nurse, the firefighter, the teacher, the young entrepreneur who doesn’t yet have money, I want to give them a tax break now.

Poor Barack was trying to make a point back then, that I’m just starting to notice now…he was tripped up by the facts, since back on October 15 a lot of people failed to make this crucial distinction between pulling in a quarter million a year, and wanting to do that someday. Therefore, his comment seems quite silly, and it’s not my intention to make it that way.

But there’s a fascinating point to be made here with regard to time. It’s an important point. It has to do with how some of us see ourselves…it has to do with that graphic of the kitty looking at itself in the mirror and seeing a lion, that I used when I wrote about Joe The Plumber (link above).

A few years ago, when a certain family member was going through a tough time he’d brought down on himself by seeing little besides perfection in himself and little besides flaws in others, I remember being drawn into a semi-heated argument. I do have faults here and there…sometimes, when I say stupid things, I’m slow to recognize it — this was not one of those times. This time I said something exceptionally wise and failed to recognize it. I’m like Obama that way. I fail to see my own wisdom and brilliance here & there. I’m working on it…

…anyway, what I offered was some kind of counseling against comparing onesself to others. It’s inappropriate, first of all; it’s a fool’s ambition to live out one’s life with a goal of being better than some-other-guy. Last I checked, they don’t carve anything about that on tombstones. Find a tombstone that says “He did better than Frank over there” with an arrow under it…you let me know. But there’s another point to be made: We betray our narcissistic intentions, some of us, by comparing our gonna-dooz with others’ hav-dunz. Gonna-dooz, and have-dunz. Those are two different things.

Obama, here, committed a sin in the world of socialist propaganda. He discussed the subject of time.

I think Joe The Plumber is “thirty tons of awesome” because he understands the difference between gonna-dooz and have-dunz, and in forming his values, he forms them around the gonna-dooz. That takes courage. That takes balls.

Barack Obama understands the difference too. (On October 15, like many of us, he mistakenly thought making 250,000 was a have-dunz of Joe’s…when it’s not.) He wanted to discuss Joe’s have-dunz. And his point was that most of us — and what he meant, in spirit, was all of us — are lacking the gumpshun we would need, to make plans around our gonna-dooz. We aren’t that great. We aren’t that strong. We need a tax policy that’s formed around our limitations, because our limitations define our identities.

Two men. One of them is thought to be the very incarnation of “The Change We Deserve.” Isn’t there a profound irony there, that the more majestic, godlike figure who presents himself as ready to lead a nation of hundreds of millions, is the one facing backward? And the guy playing catch with his son in front of a house that costs less than Barack Obama’s necktie, is the one with the leadership and courage that is needed to look forward? Thus endeth the lesson — on this one point, I trust, I have defined exactly what’s cockeyed about the situation.

Barack Obama is Ozymandias. It’s just a fact. He may win the election…or not; it may take two weeks for him to wither away into clay feet on a pedestal, or it may take four years, or eight. But he’ll get there. There is absolutely no question about it. He is Ozymandias, because while he is very impressive in the moment, history will treat him unkindly because he does not have the courage to truly look into the future. He commits a twin crime, two, possibly intermingled and inseparable, crimes of thought: He confuses mediocrity with excellence, and he confuses gonna-dooz with have-dunz.

The Change We Deserve? We’ll find out soon.

Cross-posted at Cassy Fiano.

Election Year Sanity

Saturday, October 18th, 2008

…from Stossel.

H/T: Becky the Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Stuff.

What’s it gonna take for everyone to stop being so stupid? Maybe we can elect a President who’ll get us all smartened up.

Just kiddin’. Calm down.

Can We Get This Meme Going?

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

Let’s borrow one of Cassy Fiano‘s ideas. I find, in general, if you plagiarize the brilliant ones…crime does pay. We need a payout.

I am Joe the Plumber. His story is my story.

I don’t have my quarter-mill-a-year quite yet, Sen. Obama; but I will someday, and if you’ve got a problem with my pal Joe you’ve got a problem with me.

Yeah. Like that.

Do you understand how tender and soft Obama’s armor is in this one spot? He doesn’t have any armor there at all. It is a gaping, yawning chasm in the hull of his battleship. Every single response he’s offered on this issue, in the debates as well as on the campaign trail, has had something to do with taking this 95% who’d get a tax cut…and pretending as if that’s 100%. Every single response has been a variation of that theme.

Tell you what — you prove to me that 95 and 100 is the same, I’ll agree the math is on Obama’s side, and if you can’t, then we have to agree it isn’t.

He’s raising taxes on the people who create jobs, and he does not want to talk about it. The situation is no more complicated than that. What’s complicated, is getting that message out to the people who haven’t been paying attention.

Like a Bad Spouse With a Silver Tongue

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

Next time we’re tempted into our latest fling with quasi-socialism, maybe we should consider the Ann Landers approach: “Are you better off with him or without him?”

We were married on March 4, 1932. Since then, we’ve had trial separation after trial separation after trial separation…whenever we’re at our most depressed, he calls us in the middle of the night from a pay phone by the bus depot. And we get suckered back into it one more time. After all, nobody’s saying we should be neck-deep in old-fashioned socialism…a little bit ought to be okay, right?

Well, this latest reconciliation didn’t take long at all to go sour:

In the end, Congress approved the package—seeing as how the alternative was rising unemployment, a plunging stock market, and corporations unable to borrow to cover their short-term obligations. Now, with the bailout proceeding according to plan, Americans are confronted with…rising unemployment, a plunging stock market, and corporations unable to borrow to cover their short-term obligations.

That is not how things were supposed to go. On Sept. 25, The Washington Post endorsed the administration’s effort, warning that the nation faced a replay of 1929.

“This catastrophe can be avoided,” said the editorial, “and it will be if government promptly and effectively addresses the immediate cause of financial distress—the toxic build-up in unmarketable mortgage-backed securities on bank balance sheets.” (My emphasis.) The Treasury plan, it said, fit the bill.

But the effort to restore confidence and stabilize markets turned out to be, pardon the expression, a bust. After the bailout was signed into law on Friday, Oct. 3, investors had all weekend to contemplate its tonic properties but found none.

On Monday, the stock market looked like it had been pushed out of an airplane. The Federal Reserve was so alarmed by the credit situation that it decided to take the radical step of lending directly to businesses.

By then the rescue package was a fading memory. Instead of being safely contained, the turmoil intensified and spread far beyond Wall Street—to financial markets in Europe, Asia, and South America. Said a Tuesday news story in The New York Times, “Three days after the plan was approved, it looks like a pebble tossed into a churning sea.”

“Mistake” seems to be perhaps too charitable of a word. After all, we already had a teetering, towering stack of experiences that should’ve enabled us to know better.

This is more like an addiction.

Illegal Aliens with Illegal Mortgages

Friday, October 10th, 2008

Newsbusters

A single report by KFYI radio of Phoenix, Arizona highlights a shocking claim made by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD says that five million illegal aliens hold illegal mortgages. This is just one more example of the lax lending laws put into place by Democrats like Barney Frank that have contributed to this economic crisis. One would think this would be big news. But, so far we have only this one report to cover it.

There have been earlier stories of home flipping schemes that made liberal use of illegal aliens as straw buyers and the FBI has followed numerous cases to prosecution and conviction. But the Old Media have not done much with this story.

KFYI reports that these fraudulent straw purchases of mortgages by illegal aliens has affected every state in the union.

One illegal alien was arrested this year in Tucson after allegedly using a stolen social security number to buy two homes and rack up over $780,000 in bad debt.

Some five million fraudulent home mortgages are in the hands of illegal aliens, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

It’s not known how many of those have contributed to the subprime housing mortgage meltdown, but it has affected every state, including Arizona.

The problem began years ago when banks were forced to give mortgages without confirming social security numbers or borrower identification. As a result, illegal immigrants were able to obtain home mortgages which they could not afford.

Lax immigration laws have also helped make this crime easy to perpetrate.

In 1965 a Democrat Controlled Congress under President Lyndon Johnson passed the concept of “chain” immigration into law. A later commission named the Hesburgh Commission convened during Ronald Reagan’s first term, found that this concept statistically allowed each single immigrant to bring into this country 84 of his family members. Of course, all these people have to live somewhere making such fraudulent mortgages quite attractive.

But go on. Vote for the fellow with the most charismatic personality for your hopey changey goodness, and blame any hitches in the giddy-up on “eight years of Bush Cheney.”

Real life just isn’t that simple, m’friends.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Best Sentence XLIII

Friday, October 10th, 2008

John Stossel snags the forty-third award for the Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL):

Everybody talked about the “freeze” in the credit markets, but why, I wonder, were the cable news programs that repeated the credit-freeze mantra pausing for commercials from companies trying to lend me money?

He goes on…

Ditech and LendingTree still hawk mortgages at under 6 percent. Some credit freeze.

Economist Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute looked at the credit numbers kept by the Federal Reserve. He writes: “Although certain financial institutions are undeniably in deep trouble — difficulties of their own making … — credit markets in general have not ceased to operate. Moreover, lenders are extending credit in historically great amounts“.

Maybe this is why CNN business reporter Ali Velshi broke ranks when reporting on “dried up” credit and said, “When I say ‘dried up,’ I don’t mean there’s no money. But you’d better have good collateral and good credit.”

What’s wrong with that?

You really should go read the whole thing. It’ll change your perspective…especially if you think the 1929 crash was some harbinger of doom regarding what’s about to happen to us next.

It’s the technology. Not what it used to be. Seventy-nine years is a long, long time.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Laboratories

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, delivering the opinion New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, March 1932:

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

Twelve months after that, with the inaugration of FDR, that mindset would be delivered a devastating broadside and the United States would change forever.

The irony, in my mind, is that we still live in a nation that has these state laboratories. And they’re being used. One state may try things one way, another state may try things a different way. The Federal Government can still threaten to withhold highway funding, but this is put into practice far less often today than it was when I first started voting. The states remain properly independent.

The one thing that is not being done, is to gather the data about how these experiments turn out, and simply present it where people will read it. If someone were to do that, the information wouldn’t travel that quickly, even with blogs. The left-wingers still have a near-monopoly on our media of communication. And you know it wouldn’t make them look good. There are too many states and municipalities plowing all their energies into finding the most left-wing way possible to run…things that have absolutely nothing to do with left- or right-wing. What’s the most left-wing way to bury people who are dead. What’s the most left-wing way to collect garbage. What’s the most left-wing way to wire up traffic lights in an intersection. There’s no answer to those questions. But granola meccas like San Francisco and Sacramento are determined to find one.

Vicious CycleCalifornia is surely near the top of the list of mismanaged states in this union. The situation has become so preposterous and absurd, that even our state officials wouldn’t deny it (they’d argue about where the blame lies, endlessly). But the situation is going to get even worse. How do I know that? Because of the way our local media outlets word things. Look — I just saw another report come up on the idjit box a few minutes ago…the state is “being hit with another wave of economic woes.” Being hit. Passive voice. The state is just like that fat li’l brother momma is always protecting who eats pickled pigs’ feet out of the jar and watches wrestling all day. He doesn’t do stupid things; bad things just happen to him.

This state isn’t being hit with anything that isn’t of its own making. The fact of the matter is, no business is going to relocate or expand here. Not unless it’s backed into a corner, bribed with one hell of a tax relief deal, or run by crazy people.

The state’s finances start sucking, everyone talks about a tax increase. If your finances start sucking, where’s all this noise about a tax cut? Don’t hold your breath waiting for it.

I’ve lived most of my life on the Left Coast. Within my experience, the pattern is unmistakable. You put left-wingers in charge of things, and here comes the vicious cycle. I personally have experienced no exceptions to this, and personally know of none. When do we start taking Justice Brandeis’ advice, and using our states as laboratories? I mean, all the way…not just until left-wing policies start to look bad, and then stop our learning. Let’s keep an open mind. Isn’t that supposed to be what liberalism is all about, keeping an open mind?

Update: Blogger friend Virgil has some of the hard data…the bottom line data, not state-by-state. It’s got to do with what’s flowing out of the union as a whole, year by year. Not looking good. Not lookin’ good at all.

Boortz on Jobs

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Learn it, live it, love it. Context is unimportant…although not completely so, so here’s your link. But memorize the verbiage, for it is common-sense stuff, it is being missed and covered-up by many…and it is heart-attack serious this year:

Do you want a job? Are you looking for work? Tell me, are you going to go try to find a job from a member of the middle class? Probably not. Perhaps you think your chances of finding a job might be better if you go to a small business owners and large corporations. So .. while you’re out there looking for jobs from these people, do you want us to be back in Washington raising their taxes? Do you want us to be plotting ways to relive them of the very money they need to hire you?

That’s it. That’s all that needs to be said. Although I have to ‘fess up, the bold emphasis is mine.

D’JEver Notice? X

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

It’s not just this subprime mortgage mess, it’s every single economic issue, seemingly with no exception: Each issue has a left-side and a right-side. Universal healthcare. Minimum wage. Labor unions. Income taxes. Corporate taxes. Estate taxes. Offshore drilling.

Sometimes the right side of the issue is to “do something!” and the left side is “don’t do that!” Other times, the roles are reversed. With the drilling issue, for example, the left comes up with all kinds of excuses not to do anything. With raising the minimum wage, it’s the left that says we should do something and the right that says we should not. In both cases, the conclusion comes first, the justification comes afterward, as a rationalization.

But here’s something that remains consistent:

The “left” answer always has to do with making things more expensive. This is absolutely consistent. They can talk their way around it sometimes because their solution has to do with making a certain commodity “affordable for all”…which is quite a different thing from making something less expensive. In the case of the subprime mortgage mess, the left twisted arms, and installed layers of “regulation” and “oversight” — to make sure more people would qualify for loans. But it didn’t make anything any less expensive, and we’re about to learn that in spades right now.

The left side of any given issue, always has to do with diminishing the value of the dollar. Making the price tag of goods and services higher. Especially the labor commodity…especially that.

If I want to sabotage an engine, I don’t cut the fuel line and I don’t pull spark plugs. These can be replaced inexpensively. Instead, I’m gonna work on the cooling system and rev it way up high; make that sucker burn out.

How the Markets Really Work

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

How the Veep Debate Went Down

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

1. I’m glad she brought up the nasty things Biden said about Obama before he was considered as part of the ticket. I wonder why she just whacked that nail once and then left it alone. Doesn’t seem to me Sen. Biden holds any cards there. He looks, on this topic, like exactly what he is: A lifetime beltway fixture who befriends whoever and whatever is good for him at any given moment.

2. The McCain campaign has been listening to us, I think. Gov. Palin was liberated from her talking points. She wasn’t excellent, but she was much better than people thought she would have been.

3. I was right when I said this was a rehash of the Galloway/Hitchens debate. Biden possesses a lot of momentum Palin doesn’t have. She stutters, she stammers, she barely manages to eek a few syllables out, without ever quite hitting her stride. But — what she says, makes a lot more sense. Yin and Yang. People who looked for a reason to support Obama/Biden, found it, and people who looked for a reason to support Palin/McCain, found that. I mean…wait…which one comes first, again?

4. She should’ve used the word “populist.” This is the true weakness of Obama/Biden. The ticket seems to be bound by a consistent philosophical underpinning that if something has a certain effect on nine out of ten of us, then it might as well have that same effect on us all. This talking point about the tax cut for 95% of us, for example. It’s a dinosaur. It’s lumbered on long past the asteroid already. It isn’t even true.

5. Assuming science is all about voting — which it isn’t — when did we lose this vote on cutting carbon emissions? Obama/Biden is for it, McCain/Palin is for it. Doesn’t Sarah Palin understand how this undercuts all her other pro-capitalism positions?

Palin Underworld6. I loved it when she made that comment about being for things before you’re against ’em, and how hard it is for her to understand how things work in the beltway. That’s a true Mister Smith Goes To Washington moment right there. If it was some big ol’ Paul Bunyan lookin’ guy in a plaid shirt with a big blue ox and a giant axe in his hand saying that, he’d get voted in in a landslide. Well, that’s exactly what Sarah Palin is. In a skirt.

7. I have to criticize Gov. Palin here. I don’t think she understands how it sounds when she mispronounces “nuclear.” She’d fix that, toot-sweet, if she did.

8. I don’t think Sen. Biden understands how it sounds when he repeatedly uses the name “Bush.” He’d stop.

9. Four years ago John Kerry lost the election by asking us to believe in a dichotomy. He said, I’m brilliant so I can think in nuanced terms, unlike that dolt George Bush who sees the whole world in black-and-white. But I have a serious case of confirmation-bias because George Bush is my perfect reverse-barometer about what to do. If he did something — it must be wrong. Biden left himself wide open by subscribing to this same confirmation-bias: If George Bush did something, it must have been the wrong thing to do. Palin should have struck right there. Stick a javelin right where the armor leaves that gaping hole, and shove it in to the hilt. It would have been a fatal blow to the Obama/Biden campaign, I think. Most Americans understand: If you strive to oppose something at every turn, on some level, you are trying to emulate it. Obama/Biden is failing to deliver something, here, in the very moment it is promising it.

10. Palin was at her best when she quoted Reagan. Americans are glorious and wonderful and deserve everything good that any other country deserves. Credit for being decent, when we are — and we are, quite often — the right and privilege to defend ourselves, to conduct ourselves as a civilized nation as we see fit, and to emit the hell out of everything with our pollution. Okay, that last one I’m just kind of pulling out of my butt. But the point is…fer God’s sake quit apologizing for existing! If you sympathize with that, your choice on Nov. 4 is quite clear, and the An Idea Bomb guys don’t have a lot to do with it.

Update: Ah, I had this one rattling around in my cranium and it leaked out my ears before I hit the “Publish” button. Dang it. It’s probably the most important one out of everything.

11. Comes under the heading of “potentially fatal blows to the Obama/Biden campaign” — another opportunity not taken. It happened when Biden was yelling over and over again, emphatically, and I think (?) pounding his hand on the podium “Obama and I will end this war, we will end it, we will end it.”

His jugular was exposed in that moment. Gov. Palin could have drawn a razor-sharp blade right across it, simply by taking advantage of a dramatic pause and then saying, “You and Barack Obama wouldn’t be able to decide that, Senator. Not unilaterally.”

It’s a critical point to make. That’s really what the election, insofar as foreign affairs go, is all about. When two forces are at war, does one side get to decide unilaterally that the fighting is going to end even though the other side doesn’t have its mind made up to behave-n-play-nice? This year, our liberal democrats insist that the answer is yes. One side can say “Okeedoke! It’s time for some peace!” and all the fighting will come to a stop.

Palin seems insistent on repeating talking points over and over again that help substantiate John McCain is the only decent choice for our nation’s President next year. In this respect, it’s really true. Our democrats think you can end a war just by wishing for it to end. We can’t afford for them to run anything. Not a flower cart, not a veterinary hospital, not a football team, and most certainly, not the country.

Update: Michelle Malkin liveblogged. Enjoy.

Update: Cassy too. And Melissa. And Sister Toldjah. Andrew Sullivan has his contribution, here. Wonkette. Althouse. Stop The ACLU.

Yes, I’m mixing you all up, in no particular order. No offense intended.

On the $700 Billion

Monday, September 29th, 2008

Ace

Did Paulson Pull The $700 Billion Number Out Of His Ass?

Um, maybe.

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

In that case…Mission Accomplished!

And Obama says the answer is more regulation. Yeah, let’s do it! Subject the businesses that have to justify every little number on every little ledger to “oversight” by pencil-neck government bureaucrats who so easily pull big numbers outta their butts. Put the inmates in charge of the asylum.

Anyone who agrees with that, I say, has his head crammed so far up his ass that I estimate he can stick his tongue out and lick his own tonsils.

Not that that’s based on any particular data point or anything.

Is Modern Liberalism Gene Roddenberry’s Fault?

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

Ah, now this is my kind of article. Western Chauvinist tooted her own horn over at Gerard’s place when he linked to us, and I’m glad she did. To the sidebar she goes. It’s a little difficult to tease this posting the way she’s structured it; I’ll do my best…

Is Modern Liberalism Gene Roddenberry’s Fault?

Anyone old enough to have seen the original Star Trek series created by Gene Roddenberry might recognize the utopian ideals of today’s liberals in it. Think about it. On any major policy we debate, Star Trek is the fulfillment of the liberal playbook.

Start with environmental policy. No fossil fuels burned in GR’s world. Nope – only dilithium crystals and warped space needed. Isn’t it grand? No CO2 emmissions at all…

Next up, how about economic policy? Capitalism or socialism? How primitive. As far as I can tell, no currency ever changes hands. Everyone in the Federation seems to “work” for the Federation…

How about health care? Well, Star Trek gives a whole new meaning to “universal healthcare”! I never saw Bones turn away anyone…

And finally, we can wrap up social policy, civil rights, race relations, international relations conveniently in “the prime directive”. This is encompassed by today’s liberal ethics of multiculturalism, political correctness and moral relativism…

She forgot two things, though. One helps to reinforce her theory, the other one challenges it somewhat. The challenging one is more important, but we’ll go with first things first.

An important part of being a modern liberal is to intermingle subjectivity and objectivity, which is the first of the seven steps to complete insanity. This means “anyone who thinks differently than you do must be a flaming idiot or must have something wrong with them.” Perspective is a meaningless quality. Things are the way you see them, period.

You see this in Star Trek, in which the audience is invited to identify with the Captain in nearly every episode. Watch for this pattern, for it is almost as consistent as it can possibly be: If the Captain (Kirk, Picard or Riker) tells a subordinate to do something or stop doing something, the crewman or bridge officer will carry out the order without question. If he does not, it means the subordinate’s body has been possessed by an alien or he has caught some exotic otherworldly disease. Throughout this, the Captain’s orders are the pathway to well-being — obedience leads to the Enterprise surviving whatever calamity is looming, disobedience spells certain doom for all.

There are other ranks above the Captain, and there is a meaningful flip-flop here. If an Admiral is visiting, or if orders arrive from Starfleet (outside of the first five minutes of the episode), then these orders are bollywonkers. They must be, for they compel the Captain to do something that is outside of what he would normally be doing…the Captain is the embodiment of perfect moral reasoning…therefore, Starfleet is drunk on power, infested with aliens, or something. The flip-flop that takes place above the rank of Captain is that obedience leads to disaster and rebellion is the only shot at salvation. But if the Captain (with whom the audience relates) tells you to do something you’d better do it.

Back in reality, our post-modern liberals emulate this behavior just fine. Grown-up hippies driving around with “Question Authority” bumper stickers on their cars…and if they have dinner with you, and catch wind of the fact that you “question” global climate change, they’ll call you “stupid” just for questioning it, without perceiving so much as a hint of the irony. Rebellion — they can dish it out, but they just can’t take it.

Thing I Know #235. What a self-parodying mess it is when a command hierarchy is constructed within any rebellion, for there it becomes undeniable: The rebel is only a fair-weather friend, at best, to the act of rebelling.

The other thing WC forgot is Star Trek’s mission: To explore strange new worlds, and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has ever gone before! Back in the sixties, liberalism loved to talk a good game about this, and according to the evidence that has come to my attention, had not yet directly contradicted itself here. But nowadays it’s a whole different century; liberalism is all about not doing this. It is about bathosploration:

Opposite of Exploration. A progressive movement over time which endeavors toward an ideal, rather than toward a frontier. This makes fulfillment of the Exponential Growth Instinct absolutely impossible over the long term.

Bathosploration is about doing less instead of doing more. It is about making things clean and sanitized instead of finding out what’s possible. It goes down instead of up, inward instead of outward.

Probably the best embodiment of this in modern times was the Clinton administration’s revised drinking water standards:

At the end of his eight years in office, Bill Clinton set a number of political traps for President Bush. One of them was changing the allowable level of arsenic in our water supplies from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. At the time, the scientific evidence that this change was needed was, at best, weak. And the proposal put severe burdens on some small towns. When the Bush administration took office, they set the rule aside and asked for a second look at the evidence. Immediately there was an outcry that Bush wanted to poison our children. (Sometimes from politicians, such as Tom Daschle, who had supported the higher level for years.) There was enough political damage from the charge that the Bush administration yielded to pressure and, after some months, accepted the lower standard.

And here’s the joke: More recent studies showed that the level of 50 parts per billion is fine. In fact, there is some reason to believe, thanks to the curious phenomena of hormesis, that a level of 50 parts per billion may be healthier than lower levels.

This is what bathosploration is. Can we polish what’s already been polished, and make it even smoother and shinier and more sanitary? Surely, there must be a way. Forget about exploring. Go inward instead of outward. Trudge toward an ideal instead of toward a frontier.

Liberals embrace this warts and all. You see it everywhere. You see it in the offshore drilling controversy. Don’t drill that! Something’s endangered. Buy carbon credits instead…bring your net carbon emissions to zero, like Al Gore said. Be a zero. Stop existing meaningfully. Abort your baby, show your patriotism by paying higher taxes, and when you die have a green funeral.

Star Trek is about the polar opposite of that. Oh sure, the individuals are likewise diminished…bridge crew notwithstanding, everyone on the Enterprise is just a nameless extra wearing spandex. It’s the exploration part of it. Reaching for the stars, finding out what’s out there — forget it. Liberals like to talk a lot about what could be out there. Stepping on out, once the technology is available, to find out for sure? Not on the liberal’s watch…not while he has anything to say about it. That disastrous episode Force of Nature in which Starfleet imposes a Warp 5 speed limit due to this discovery that the warp drive damages the fabric of space…that would end up being your pilot episode, right there. Omigod!! By existing and doing bold things, we’re damaging the environment! Again!

Funny how that never, ever seems to change.

Liberals think humans are so special, in our own way. Killer whales bite seals in half, or swallow ’em whole. Lionesses strip chunks of bloody flesh off the bodies of antelope that were frantically running away just moments before. Spiders inject venom into the bodies of flies that dissolve them into a ghastly milkshake from the inside out, while the flies are still alive, writhing in agony. That’s fine. But you, you human schmuck, are destroying the world simply by driving to work.

So if modern liberalism is Star Trek’s fault, the monster seems to have turned against its creator since being first animated. Perhaps that part of the Star Trek culture never was terribly well thought out. After all, what good does it do to seek out new civilizations and new worlds, and then once you find them…make extra sure you not have anything to do with ’em because of your revered Prime Directive?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Bipartisanship

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

This whole “bailout” thing — the actual money it’s going to cost is, is only a portion of the real damage, and it’s a minority portion. The real crippling payment for it comes out of the purse of our thinking. This is the price we really can’t afford.

We can’t have bipartisanship in the United States, because the fissure between our two parties is too deep. We have a party that values life, and another party that only pretends to value life when it really values death. We have a party that wants to work with the market and uphold the virtues of free enterprise, and another party that wants to get rid of free enterprise and put the market out of existence. We have a party that wants people to be independent and another party that wants people to be more dependent on their government.

You don’t find a compromise between these. You simply don’t.

This is where Sarah Palin really slipped and fell during that Couric interview. It’s always been her weak point — the talking points about bipartisanship. She runs out of things to say, she loops these things two, three, four times, it sounds terrible. Repeating something doesn’t automatically make it terrible. Speaking from talking points, instead of from the heart, sounds terrible. As a product, Gov. Palin has been enormously successful, and the success of that product comes from the prospect of translating ideas that work in the real world into our government. Whoever’s feeding her these talking points, is diminishing what’s wonderful about her and in so doing defeating the entire purpose.

Palin’s not alone. Nobody has said anything about the bailout yet, that has captured the public’s enthusiasm…which is a great pity, because the one thing that has a chance of getting us out of this mess is the one thing that would so capture the public’s enthusiasm.

And that thing is this.

Market forces, and populism, are like oil and water. Our nation has a long history, by now, of trying to mix the two together and it has never worked. It creates problems. Our tendency in dealing with these problems has been to blame them on the marketplace, rather than on the mixing, and then to indulge in more mixing. This latest meltdown is no exception, in fact, it’s already gone three laps on this merry-go-round and is starting a fourth. That’s why the dollar amounts we’re discussing are so staggeringly high. If we opt for more compromises where they aren’t possible, we will start that fourth lap and the next time we have to deal with it the dollar amounts will be even higher.

The marketplace has always been friendly to us when we have been friendly to the marketplace. That should be our paramount goal as we seek a solution to this crisis. And if it’s solvency we want, then we need to show our dedication to that solvency, and include that solvency in the objectives of this “oversight” we discuss so much and so often. I don’t know about you, but for the last several decades when I hear about regulatory oversight in the home lending market, I’ve heard a lot about “community outreach” and very little about solvency. So if solvency’s our goal, let’s make the oversight all about that, or else get rid of it altogether. But the status quo is, we pretend to appreciate the virtues of free enterprise, while engaging in a vicious assault upon it — and today, you see the result.

America needs to return to her roots. There is a difference between making it possible for people to live in freedom, with a minimalist government, and bringing them to harm. If you don’t believe that is so, you must not believe in the competence of people to eventually learn from whatever mistakes they may make. You have a right to that opinion. But that opinion is not centrist; it is not moderate; it is not compromise; it isn’t even American. From there, let the debate go forward, but let us debate things as they really are. Humans are glorious, intelligent creatures, Americans are among the most courageous and resourceful among humans, and we have always realized our most dazzling successes when left to embrace opportunity and danger as capable individuals. We got into this mess by putting security above opportunity. We will head in the exact opposite direction, to get ourselves out of it. And we will succeed. We will fix this mess we have made. That is the only way we can.

Update: Talk about humming from the same hymnbook. But there’s been no collaboration here, I found this after I’d written the above. It captures perfectly what I had in mind with these comments about the merry-go-round…so before anybody asks what that was all about, just hit play.

H/T to Neptunus Lex, via blogger friend Buck.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

How to Make a Pencil

Friday, September 26th, 2008

Via Gerard.

Good thing to point out right about now. We have this glaring failure of the “marketplace” — you don’t need to inspect it very long at all, to figure out there are some heap-big problems with trying to blame this failure on the market. But nobody else can jump in and claim credit for making that pencil. Or any one of a number of things much more complicated and much more essential than that.

Something to keep in mind next time you hear about Obama, Biden, McCain or Palin breezily throw around the word “oversight.” And to be fair about it, all four of ’em have done it. We don’t live in a country in which we can depend on our officials. The world of culturally-mandated ritually-dispensed sound-bites is far too rigid and unforgiving up at those high altitudes. We have to figure things out for ourselves.

Individualism and Collectivism

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

Thanks to JohnJ for pointing out this excellent series to me in an off-line.