A centralized government is never better at recognizing profitable investments than the private sector. Government is not an investor. Investment is defined as 'taking money that you EARNED and then using that money to create more money'. Government does not earn money. Government can only redistribute money that it takes from citizens.
Government cannot amplify the power of wealth in an economy by taking it from one citizen and giving it to another, because government must support the costs of its own existence. Wealth shrinks in the hands of government. Government intervention slows down the real economy and misallocates funds because a central government can never anticipate the needs of an economy better than the people who are living in that economy can.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The Myth Of Government As Private Sector Job Creator
The myth of the government as 'job creator' is nonsense. Government can only consume wealth, not create it, and government should only consume the wealth necessary to fund services that the private sector has no incentive to perform, nothing more.
If governments could create wealth, they wouldn't need taxes. Governments need taxes because governments are a net drain on the economy. After all, what does government have to contribute to the economy, other than *money that was already in the hands of the people to begin with*??
Government cannot take taxes from the people and then return that money into the economy in a more potent state. Think about it. If you had a corn farm and your neighbor was hungry for corn, would you hire a government worker to take a bushel of your corn to Washington in taxes and then bring the corn back to your neighbor? Of course not. That would be a completely inefficient way to create the relationships between corn farmer/farm worker/corn consumer. You would hire your neighbor to help pick your corn to feed his family. How does government contribute anything to that relationship but waste?
The only way government has ever helped private sector job creation is by tax cuts and tax rebates. This was proven by the immediate surges in market energy produced by 'cash for clunkers' and the homeowner tax credit. When people are keeping more of their money, they put more of their money into the economy.
There are only three roles for a human being in an economy. We all occupy two of the roles, and some of us occupy three of the roles. Those roles are:
Employer
Employee
Consumer
Most of us serve as both consumer and employee, a smaller number serve as employer and consumer. Unless the government is serving as the employer for work that can only be organized by the government ( military, police, infrastructure, etc. ), government has no role in the economy. Government jobs are a socialist sector of the economy that exist alongside the market economy. You don't strengthen a market economy by giving government a greater role, because government can only act in a socialist manner.
If there is a genuine need for employees in the market, the market will put them to work. If there is a product that is genuinely worth buying, the consumers will buy it. In all sectors of the economy other than the sector covering work that is traditionally and exclusively organized by the government, government intervention is a hindrance, not a help. There is never a need for a government to broker work between employer and employee in the private sector. If the need for workers and the need for work are genuine, the arrangements between worker and employer will form naturally. No government intervention is required.
If governments could create wealth, they wouldn't need taxes. Governments need taxes because governments are a net drain on the economy. After all, what does government have to contribute to the economy, other than *money that was already in the hands of the people to begin with*??
Government cannot take taxes from the people and then return that money into the economy in a more potent state. Think about it. If you had a corn farm and your neighbor was hungry for corn, would you hire a government worker to take a bushel of your corn to Washington in taxes and then bring the corn back to your neighbor? Of course not. That would be a completely inefficient way to create the relationships between corn farmer/farm worker/corn consumer. You would hire your neighbor to help pick your corn to feed his family. How does government contribute anything to that relationship but waste?
The only way government has ever helped private sector job creation is by tax cuts and tax rebates. This was proven by the immediate surges in market energy produced by 'cash for clunkers' and the homeowner tax credit. When people are keeping more of their money, they put more of their money into the economy.
There are only three roles for a human being in an economy. We all occupy two of the roles, and some of us occupy three of the roles. Those roles are:
Employer
Employee
Consumer
Most of us serve as both consumer and employee, a smaller number serve as employer and consumer. Unless the government is serving as the employer for work that can only be organized by the government ( military, police, infrastructure, etc. ), government has no role in the economy. Government jobs are a socialist sector of the economy that exist alongside the market economy. You don't strengthen a market economy by giving government a greater role, because government can only act in a socialist manner.
If there is a genuine need for employees in the market, the market will put them to work. If there is a product that is genuinely worth buying, the consumers will buy it. In all sectors of the economy other than the sector covering work that is traditionally and exclusively organized by the government, government intervention is a hindrance, not a help. There is never a need for a government to broker work between employer and employee in the private sector. If the need for workers and the need for work are genuine, the arrangements between worker and employer will form naturally. No government intervention is required.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
No Such Thing As A 'Climate Denier'
There is no such thing as a climate change denier. Everyone knows that the climate changes. The debate is over how much is under our control.
There are many Americans who oppose expensive and bloody wars against an enemy that is not geographically based, because it is an exaggerated response to an exaggerated threat. Do you call such people 'terrorism deniers', just because they think that occupying Iraq for twenty years doesn't solve anything?
A 'War on CO2' is as misguided as a War on Terror, for the exact same reason. It's an exaggerated response against an exaggerated threat. ( But, like the War on Terror, the war on CO2 can keep a lot of well-connected people and corporations lots and lots of money. )
There are many Americans who oppose expensive and bloody wars against an enemy that is not geographically based, because it is an exaggerated response to an exaggerated threat. Do you call such people 'terrorism deniers', just because they think that occupying Iraq for twenty years doesn't solve anything?
A 'War on CO2' is as misguided as a War on Terror, for the exact same reason. It's an exaggerated response against an exaggerated threat. ( But, like the War on Terror, the war on CO2 can keep a lot of well-connected people and corporations lots and lots of money. )
Medieval
Johann Hari: "Every single year since 1917 has been hotter than 1917. Every single year since 1956 has been hotter than 1956. Every single year since 1992 has been hotter than 1992. "
During the first century of the Medieval Warm Period, someone could have written this: "Every single year since 1000 has been hotter than 1000. Every single year since 1056 has been hotter than 1056. Every single year since 1092 has been hotter than 1092."
The Earth warmed for about two centuries, until around 1200. Then a decline began, and around 1350, the Little Ice Age started.
I wonder if people guessed correctly in the 11th century that the Sun was causing that warming trend?
'New Ice Age' Fearmongering From The 1970's
'New Ice Age' fearmongering was everywhere in the 1970's. It proved to be as fantastical as their sea level predictions from the 1990's.
Phony Leftist Environmentalists Silent About Environmental Damage Caused By Globalization That They Promoted
If the Left was serious about cutting carbon emissions, they would be supporting immediate emergency protectionist measures for the US economy that sharply cut how many imported goods we buy from the other side of the globe. Transporting goods from Chinese factories to US stores is completely environmentally reckless. This won't happen, because the environmental ramifications of global 'free' trade are shielded from criticism by the corporate media, and the phony Left only repeats back what the corporate media pumps into them.
Interlocked
The latest recession had nothing to with unfettered capitalism- it was produced by an alliance of crony capitalists who operate an interlocked network of cartels and trusts under the protection of a dominant central government. A con game enabled by a government that ran interference for the con artists.
That's what everyone seems to miss. There was no 'absence of government'. Government has been purchased, fortified, and used to enforce markets in favor of an elite club of insiders.
Now this same network of crony capitalists has vastly exaggerated the threat of greenhouse gases ( nearly all of which are produced by sources other than human industry ) in order to impose even greater centralized ( globalized ) command over world commerce.
That's what everyone seems to miss. There was no 'absence of government'. Government has been purchased, fortified, and used to enforce markets in favor of an elite club of insiders.
Now this same network of crony capitalists has vastly exaggerated the threat of greenhouse gases ( nearly all of which are produced by sources other than human industry ) in order to impose even greater centralized ( globalized ) command over world commerce.
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Sweat Did Not Warm The Horse
The AGW disciples have it all backwards. if you take a thoroughbred horse and run it full out for a mile and a quarter, the horse's body temperature will rise, and sweat will shine on his torso. The AGW disciples would look at the horse's sweat and say, "Ah hah! I have detected sweat on this warm horse. This has convinced me that the sweat has caused this horse's body temperature to rise!"
The horse's sweat is an aftereffect of his exertion. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an aftereffect of a warmed earth, not the engine of earth warmth. It is expelled in greater quantities from the oceans after the sun warms the oceans. The next biggest contributors of CO2 are volcanoes. Man's contribution is minor. Remove man from the equation, CO2 still rises and falls due to other greater forces. Remove CO2 from the equation, and earth temps still rise and fall due to other greater forces.
The horse's sweat is an aftereffect of his exertion. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an aftereffect of a warmed earth, not the engine of earth warmth. It is expelled in greater quantities from the oceans after the sun warms the oceans. The next biggest contributors of CO2 are volcanoes. Man's contribution is minor. Remove man from the equation, CO2 still rises and falls due to other greater forces. Remove CO2 from the equation, and earth temps still rise and fall due to other greater forces.
Row Your Earth
The statement that 'Climate change is fueled by human activity' does not equal this statement, 'the course of climate change can be reversed or substantially redirected by human action'.
A human can row a paddle off the side of a 60 foot sailboat and state that, technically, he is 'fueling the boat's movements', but that doesn't mean that he has made an appreciable difference to the propulsion provided by the sails.
A human can row a paddle off the side of a 60 foot sailboat and state that, technically, he is 'fueling the boat's movements', but that doesn't mean that he has made an appreciable difference to the propulsion provided by the sails.
Bernie Sanders On Bernanke
Sanders: "The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities to put the interests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall Street and the wealthy few. "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/where-was-the-fed_b_380239.htmlI really do wish the American people had cast that vote, but they didn't. After Congress caved in and voted through TARP after the first vote failed ( despite the public polls showing opposition to TARP at 10-1 against ), the American people should have marched to the polls in November and voted out every single incumbent who voted for TARP. Americans failed to do that. Did the American people vote against the candidate for President with the most Wall Street funding? No. They chose Obama.
Until Americans actually learn to use the power of the ballot box for someone outside the two-party system, they're not going to see much change in national priorities.
Extreme Is The New Mainstream?
Responding to his column: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-levin-jd/sarahs-dance-with-conspir_b_379831.html
It is impossible for extremism to also be mainstream. How can unpopular ( extreme ) views also be popular ( mainstream ) views?
Conspiracy theories flourish when people suspect that the media have abandoned their responsibility to thoroughly investigate the halls of power. I can almost guarantee that shrieking 'You're an EXTREMIST!' at anyone who holds skeptical views about some officially-sanctioned history is probably not how the dominant media are going to win back the trust of the masses, not after their gross failures to uncover both the fraudulent intelligence that put us in Iraq and the organized looting of the housing bubble before it imploded.
Message to the dominant media: do your jobs better, and the conspiracy theories will lose favor. Demonizing the public for asking questions about things that smell funny will only reinforce the suspicion that the media has traded in its sword for a rubber stamp.
No one has said that government 'always lies'. That would be an extremist view, and it's not my view.
Whenever people start dividing skeptics up into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy', they're headed right down the same path with those who think that free speech can be divided up into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy'. Except for very specific examples ( fire in a theater ), free speech and skepticism share equal boundaries, and that would be 'none'. Any attempts to grade free speech or skepticism are efforts to restrict free speech and skepticism. There can be no objective arbitration of either. All who would attempt to ration skepticism have self-serving motives- most especially anyone carrying the weight of the government or the dominant media.
The public square cannot be cleansed of offensive speech or misguided skepticism by anything other than a police state and organized media censorship. If Americans are so feeble of mind that we require any portion of a police state or a censoring media to rescue us from the thoughts of a Sarah Palin, then we have really lost sight of the big picture.
Sarah Palin is scary?? Really? She's about one one thousandth as scary as a country where people are reluctant to speak their minds for fear of being called 'extremists' or 'unhealthy'.
"extreme is the new mainstream"
It is impossible for extremism to also be mainstream. How can unpopular ( extreme ) views also be popular ( mainstream ) views?
Conspiracy theories flourish when people suspect that the media have abandoned their responsibility to thoroughly investigate the halls of power. I can almost guarantee that shrieking 'You're an EXTREMIST!' at anyone who holds skeptical views about some officially-sanctioned history is probably not how the dominant media are going to win back the trust of the masses, not after their gross failures to uncover both the fraudulent intelligence that put us in Iraq and the organized looting of the housing bubble before it imploded.
Message to the dominant media: do your jobs better, and the conspiracy theories will lose favor. Demonizing the public for asking questions about things that smell funny will only reinforce the suspicion that the media has traded in its sword for a rubber stamp.
quoting comment from J G H:
Their is healthy skepticism which asks questions, but will accept good answers. There is also unhealthy skepticism which assumes that since the government has lied in specific instances in the past, that it always lies. These unhealthy skeptics then turn around and place unwavering faith in non-government sources which have their own flaws. The government does not always lie, and opponents to the government are often wrong, indeed often lie because they want to become the government.
No one has said that government 'always lies'. That would be an extremist view, and it's not my view.
Whenever people start dividing skeptics up into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy', they're headed right down the same path with those who think that free speech can be divided up into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy'. Except for very specific examples ( fire in a theater ), free speech and skepticism share equal boundaries, and that would be 'none'. Any attempts to grade free speech or skepticism are efforts to restrict free speech and skepticism. There can be no objective arbitration of either. All who would attempt to ration skepticism have self-serving motives- most especially anyone carrying the weight of the government or the dominant media.
The public square cannot be cleansed of offensive speech or misguided skepticism by anything other than a police state and organized media censorship. If Americans are so feeble of mind that we require any portion of a police state or a censoring media to rescue us from the thoughts of a Sarah Palin, then we have really lost sight of the big picture.
Sarah Palin is scary?? Really? She's about one one thousandth as scary as a country where people are reluctant to speak their minds for fear of being called 'extremists' or 'unhealthy'.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Goldman Is Arming
Wait, according to what I read in the MSM, I thought that only crazy survivalists bought handguns, in preparation for economic meltdown and a breakdown of law and order??
What is GS trying to tell us?
What is GS trying to tell us?
Carbon Offsets
It's a stroke of genius by the oil companies to get involved in the market for carbon offsets. Not only do they get to continue to sell their product, they get to punish consumers with a tax for buying it- then they take the proceeds from the tax and use it to subsidize the expansion of their own alternative energy companies.
Shell, BP and Rockefellers are big players in the carbon credit exchanges.
Shell, BP and Rockefellers are big players in the carbon credit exchanges.
Price Support
A significant part of the price support on global stock markets is laundered profits from the illegal drug trade. They're a great source of liquidity for the banks, also.
How Can You Declare Victory When The War Is Not A Real War?
Suppose this surge results in something that the administration calls 'victory' in Afghanistan- do you really think this will cause the US to declare victory in the 'War on Terror'? Highly unlikely. The War on Terror is the perfect war for defense contractors, because it has no definable end. They will continue to justify expense and death on the terror rationale for as long as our creditors keep buying our debt.
Drug Money
This is another reason why the dollar continues to hold the support it does- besides being the world's petro dollar, it is also the currency of choice when it comes to international organized crime and the drug cartels. Which of course intertwine with the international terrorist networks, state-sponsored and otherwise.
Linguistic Violence
'linguistic violence' is a good term for it. Using the term 'conspiracy theorist' as a pejorative is an attempt to shut down discussion, and it's pretty ridiculous, considering that in the last 10 years, we've observed elaborate conspiracies to concoct a rationale for war out of invented intelligence and to overrate and distribute corroding bundles of failing mortgages to unsuspecting investors.
Shock and Awe
Every effort to 'finish off' terrorism by unleashing shock and awe on a specific locale waters the tree of terrorism, which can sprout from any soil anywhere.
America Without A Middle Class
Trickle down economics and globalization are not the same thing. They really have very little to do with each other. We opened our borders and allowed capital that should have been working inside this country to flee and hunt for workers in cheaper labor markets. Subconsciously, most of us probably knew that stagnant wages could only be masked by the price breaks we got on cheap imports for so long, but we signed off on the concept of 'borrow from overseas to buy what they make'. We sold ourselves on the promise of a free lunch. There is no free lunch.
Globalization is the bigger villain. This country could have survived lower tax rates on the wealthy if their excess wasn't allowed to pursue so much investment overseas, or allowed to inflate so many speculative bubbles.
I hate to say this, but we went from a nation of people who built things to a nation of people who traded IOU's for the products of others. They worked, we partied.
Wall Street isn't the backbone of a real economy people, sorry. It does not redistribute wealth broadly, it concentrates it into a pyramidal caste system.
Globalization is the bigger villain. This country could have survived lower tax rates on the wealthy if their excess wasn't allowed to pursue so much investment overseas, or allowed to inflate so many speculative bubbles.
I hate to say this, but we went from a nation of people who built things to a nation of people who traded IOU's for the products of others. They worked, we partied.
Wall Street isn't the backbone of a real economy people, sorry. It does not redistribute wealth broadly, it concentrates it into a pyramidal caste system.
Sovereign Debt Crisis
Reply to an excellent column here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-harrison/on-the-sovereign-debt-cri_b_376642.html
a huffpo comment:
The writer seems to have little understanding of how the modern monetary system works. We have a fiat currency system with non-convertible currency. The debt is a reflection of the deficit only in the sense that deficit spending increases bank holdings and the government "borrows" those holdings, or more accurately clears excess reserves to reduce interbank competition and maintain the feds chosen interest rate. The government never "borrows" anything to pay for deficits (nor does it impose taxes to pay for deficits, another repeated fallacy). That's impossible when government owns the currency, which is non-convertible. This is why the debt grows AFTER deficit spending (i.e. the govt. isn't out there trying to drum up business before it spends). The govt. monetary system isn't analogous to you borrowing money and getting a mortgage. When "debt" or more accurately the Interest Rate Management Account becomes due, the government merely credits the account of the bond holder. It does not "print money" to service the debt. In reality, debt is not the issue when the government is managing its economy, its employment and inflation. Stimulus serves to drive down unemployment and taxation serves to stifle demand and lower inflation.
In the current situation of high levels of unemployment along with deflation, worrying about debt, which is of little concern to citizen's economic health, is criminal. I hope Mr. Harrison takes time to understand how the modern monetary system work before posting more pieces that misplace reader's concerns about the economy.
I found the column to be very accurate and your complaints based on inaccuracies.
"The government never "borrows" anything to pay for deficits "
The government does indeed borrow from future income to cover the current shortfall between taxes and expenses. That's what the auctioned Treasuries represent- constant borrowing to pay for budget gaps. Budget gaps are deficits
"government owns the currency, which is non-convertible"
The US government does not own the currency- the government grants the license to the private Federal Reserve that allows the Fed to call the federal reserve notes ( a debt instrument ) 'legal tender'.
"worrying about debt, which is of little concern to citizen's economic health, is criminal."
Sorry, but debt is debt, and it's just as dangerous for the government to ignore an accumulating debt as it is for an individual to do so. Just because adding debt does not produce corresponding, highly visible, and immediate changes in the appearance of the economy does not mean that it is not generating forces that are accelerating as the debt compounds.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-harrison/on-the-sovereign-debt-cri_b_376642.html
a huffpo comment:
The writer seems to have little understanding of how the modern monetary system works. We have a fiat currency system with non-convertible currency. The debt is a reflection of the deficit only in the sense that deficit spending increases bank holdings and the government "borrows" those holdings, or more accurately clears excess reserves to reduce interbank competition and maintain the feds chosen interest rate. The government never "borrows" anything to pay for deficits (nor does it impose taxes to pay for deficits, another repeated fallacy). That's impossible when government owns the currency, which is non-convertible. This is why the debt grows AFTER deficit spending (i.e. the govt. isn't out there trying to drum up business before it spends). The govt. monetary system isn't analogous to you borrowing money and getting a mortgage. When "debt" or more accurately the Interest Rate Management Account becomes due, the government merely credits the account of the bond holder. It does not "print money" to service the debt. In reality, debt is not the issue when the government is managing its economy, its employment and inflation. Stimulus serves to drive down unemployment and taxation serves to stifle demand and lower inflation.
In the current situation of high levels of unemployment along with deflation, worrying about debt, which is of little concern to citizen's economic health, is criminal. I hope Mr. Harrison takes time to understand how the modern monetary system work before posting more pieces that misplace reader's concerns about the economy.
I found the column to be very accurate and your complaints based on inaccuracies.
"The government never "borrows" anything to pay for deficits "
The government does indeed borrow from future income to cover the current shortfall between taxes and expenses. That's what the auctioned Treasuries represent- constant borrowing to pay for budget gaps. Budget gaps are deficits
"government owns the currency, which is non-convertible"
The US government does not own the currency- the government grants the license to the private Federal Reserve that allows the Fed to call the federal reserve notes ( a debt instrument ) 'legal tender'.
"worrying about debt, which is of little concern to citizen's economic health, is criminal."
Sorry, but debt is debt, and it's just as dangerous for the government to ignore an accumulating debt as it is for an individual to do so. Just because adding debt does not produce corresponding, highly visible, and immediate changes in the appearance of the economy does not mean that it is not generating forces that are accelerating as the debt compounds.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
ClimateGate's Phil Jones Resigns
I still intend to fight the dangerous pollutant known as carbon dioxide until my dying breath. If I defeat CO2, I'll succeed in ending all life on the planet, but like any good earth religion cultist, that's my ultimate dream.
:)
:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
