[Let them eat sex added]
Pic via iOwnTheWorld.
out
Showing posts with label economic fail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic fail. Show all posts
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
The Left is Out of Step With Our Depression Era Nation...
polifrog
The contraceptive mandate on the left is oddly a discussion about women with jobs, not women without jobs.
Does the left really want to make the debate about "free" contraceptives for the employed, those most likely to be able to afford it?
That side of the debate should at the very least be about women and men without jobs, the very women and men who are less able to afford contraceptives and for whatever reason are unwilling to take advantage of free contraceptives at Planned Parenthood. Bizarrely it is not.
I mean, really, "free" contraceptives for women and men but only if you have or can get a job in an economy that provides no jobs or even worse, continuously fewer jobs relative to the total population?
One might think the left is disingenuously playing politics.
[Welcome Daily Pundit Readers]
out
The contraceptive mandate on the left is oddly a discussion about women with jobs, not women without jobs.
Does the left really want to make the debate about "free" contraceptives for the employed, those most likely to be able to afford it?
That side of the debate should at the very least be about women and men without jobs, the very women and men who are less able to afford contraceptives and for whatever reason are unwilling to take advantage of free contraceptives at Planned Parenthood. Bizarrely it is not.
I mean, really, "free" contraceptives for women and men but only if you have or can get a job in an economy that provides no jobs or even worse, continuously fewer jobs relative to the total population?
One might think the left is disingenuously playing politics.
[Welcome Daily Pundit Readers]
out
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Smile File Visits the First Keynesian...
polifrog
We should really get naming recessions and depressions that result from Keynesian Theory what they are ... Keynesian Depressions.
out
- Keynesian solutions that were intended to propel us out of the Great depression landed us in the Recession of 1937.
- Keynesian solutions that were intended to propel Japan out of their late 80's recession landed Japan in a 20 year perma-recession.
- Keynesian solutions that were intended to propel the US out of the recession of 2008 landed us in yet another Keynesian Depression.
We should really get naming recessions and depressions that result from Keynesian Theory what they are ... Keynesian Depressions.
out
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Great Econ Hoodwink...
polifrog
Economics is a humanities masquerading as a science. Keynesians got it fundamentally wrong.
Yep...
out
Economics is a humanities masquerading as a science. Keynesians got it fundamentally wrong.
...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being.
Yep...
out
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Rep. Mel Watt (NC-12) - Diving beyond Debt and Morality...
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Mel Watt and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Mel Watt does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Mel Watt's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Mel Watt finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Mel Watt to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Mel Watt, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Mel Watt and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Mel Watt does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Mel Watt's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Mel Watt finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Mel Watt to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Mel Watt, a grade school economist.
out
Friday, October 29, 2010
David Price NC-4 -- On the wrong side of history...
polifrog
The history of government at this point seems to be little more than a ramping up of governance at the expense of the citizenry. Liberals offer staggering increases in government while pretending to be generous with rights that in reality have little economic impact on anything, while conservatives offer only a slowing of government growth and increasing government power in other more subtle ways. Who offers a return to true liberty of the individual and limited government?
It is not hard to look at the various nations around the world and see that economic vitality follows those nations that adhere to limited government and individual liberty. Even China's stellar growth has come with its moves toward liberty and away from total control.
Nations that were once popping with innovation throughout Europe are now stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare of government overreach and near paralysis through regulation as their citizens continue to loose their liberty and ability to cope with the changing world. As a result the whole of the area has been experiencing an economic spin-down for decades. As for the US, America is following the lead of Europe with Utopianist leaders such as David Price.
I can only hope that our form of government which has proven resilient while at the same time quite nimble compared to others throughout the world will pivot and put David Price on the wrong side of history.
out
The economy in Britain and much of the world is in dire straits and it would not be an exaggeration to say we have entered a period of history that far from being a 'crisis of capitalism', historians looking back may well call it the 'crisis of regulatory statism'.
The history of government at this point seems to be little more than a ramping up of governance at the expense of the citizenry. Liberals offer staggering increases in government while pretending to be generous with rights that in reality have little economic impact on anything, while conservatives offer only a slowing of government growth and increasing government power in other more subtle ways. Who offers a return to true liberty of the individual and limited government?
It is not hard to look at the various nations around the world and see that economic vitality follows those nations that adhere to limited government and individual liberty. Even China's stellar growth has come with its moves toward liberty and away from total control.
Nations that were once popping with innovation throughout Europe are now stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare of government overreach and near paralysis through regulation as their citizens continue to loose their liberty and ability to cope with the changing world. As a result the whole of the area has been experiencing an economic spin-down for decades. As for the US, America is following the lead of Europe with Utopianist leaders such as David Price.
I can only hope that our form of government which has proven resilient while at the same time quite nimble compared to others throughout the world will pivot and put David Price on the wrong side of history.
out
Rep Brad Miller (NC-13) -- Relegating the Citizenry to the Position of Business Costs Through Health Care Reform....
polifrog
Do we want a health-care system in which we are a cost,
-or do we want a health-care system that competes for our dollars?
Stupak:
It doesn't end with the unborn either. We would all become a cost under governmental health-care and as such our deaths would work to the advantage of the system.
I would prefer my continued life to work to the advantage of the system, and it does so when the heath-care system has to fight for my dollars. It is to their advantage if I live to bring back more dollars later.
Of course, I have to be the source of those dollars. When I am not the source of the dollars I become a cost.
Should we be Brad Miller's cost health-care burden or a customer that supports the health-care industry?
I choose customer.
out
Do we want a health-care system in which we are a cost,
-or do we want a health-care system that competes for our dollars?
Stupak:
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,”This is an insight into the fundamental health-care choice we have before us.
It doesn't end with the unborn either. We would all become a cost under governmental health-care and as such our deaths would work to the advantage of the system.
I would prefer my continued life to work to the advantage of the system, and it does so when the heath-care system has to fight for my dollars. It is to their advantage if I live to bring back more dollars later.
Of course, I have to be the source of those dollars. When I am not the source of the dollars I become a cost.
Should we be Brad Miller's cost health-care burden or a customer that supports the health-care industry?
I choose customer.
out
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Rep. David Price -- Destroying the Economic Pact Between Consumer and Producer...
polifrog
When the consumer abdicates the power of consumerism to the government the end user becomes a cost of doing business.
What does this mean?
One of the greatest strengths inherent in being an American is the ability to vote with our dollars, Simply put, business do what they do to get our dollars. If they don't provide the service they don't get the dollars. Businesses do what they do well, they do it efficiently, or they fail. This simple concept is such an ingrained concept it has become taken for granted and, frankly, a bore to describe. But, all the same, it is an the source of miracles and has created one of the world's greatest most efficient economic powers the history has ever known.
Yesterday our socialist democrats have decided it best to kill one sixth of that miracle. They have taken from Americans our power to vote with our dollar when purchasing health care. In their distorted world view,they feel they should be the source of all dollars in the medical sector of our economy. The transaction is no longer defined as being between the provider and the end user, and instead has been redefined as between Gov. and provider. One sixth of the economy (health care) is now in business to make the Gov happy in an effort to get Gov. dollars.
This forces the health-care end user out of the transaction and relegates them to the powerless status of a business cost. That is, you and me---business costs.
David Price cast his vote in favor of an American Economic Spin-down
out
When the consumer abdicates the power of consumerism to the government the end user becomes a cost of doing business.
What does this mean?
One of the greatest strengths inherent in being an American is the ability to vote with our dollars, Simply put, business do what they do to get our dollars. If they don't provide the service they don't get the dollars. Businesses do what they do well, they do it efficiently, or they fail. This simple concept is such an ingrained concept it has become taken for granted and, frankly, a bore to describe. But, all the same, it is an the source of miracles and has created one of the world's greatest most efficient economic powers the history has ever known.
Yesterday our socialist democrats have decided it best to kill one sixth of that miracle. They have taken from Americans our power to vote with our dollar when purchasing health care. In their distorted world view,they feel they should be the source of all dollars in the medical sector of our economy. The transaction is no longer defined as being between the provider and the end user, and instead has been redefined as between Gov. and provider. One sixth of the economy (health care) is now in business to make the Gov happy in an effort to get Gov. dollars.
This forces the health-care end user out of the transaction and relegates them to the powerless status of a business cost. That is, you and me---business costs.
David Price cast his vote in favor of an American Economic Spin-down
out
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Rep Brad Miller - Pushing Debt on Those Who Could Least Afford It and Resisting Sound Economic Policies...
polifrog
Time and again we hear Brad Miller touting "cheap homes" or "affordable homes". These are euphemisms for indebtedness. Only the loans, due to government incentives were cheap, not the homes. Many of those "home owners" are now home less.
During the economic buildup of the early 2000s that lead to our current housing crises Brad Miller stood athwart attempts to reign in the speculation and excesses that had become stables at Fannie and Freddie Mac. In an attempt to stymie the introduction of economic soundness in the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie and Freddie Mac, Brad Miller went on record saying:
(Giant H/T to RedState)
(emphasis added)
This summer Brad Miller was still pushing loans on the poor. In Zebulon:
It is outrageous that after the misery created by policies that induced unsound indebtedness among the most vulnerable of Americans, Brad Miller is continues pushing his debt slavery.
The video below lists the sound practices Brad Miller was fighting against.
Brad Miller is a Grade School Economist and you suffer.
out
Time and again we hear Brad Miller touting "cheap homes" or "affordable homes". These are euphemisms for indebtedness. Only the loans, due to government incentives were cheap, not the homes. Many of those "home owners" are now home less.
During the economic buildup of the early 2000s that lead to our current housing crises Brad Miller stood athwart attempts to reign in the speculation and excesses that had become stables at Fannie and Freddie Mac. In an attempt to stymie the introduction of economic soundness in the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie and Freddie Mac, Brad Miller went on record saying:
We have been concerned that the Administration’s legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken affordable housing performance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness. While the GSEs’ affordable housing mission is not in any way incompatible with their safety and soundness, an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing.(Copy of complete letter here)
(Giant H/T to RedState)
(emphasis added)
This summer Brad Miller was still pushing loans on the poor. In Zebulon:
Miller said affordable housing is an important goal in troubling times for the industry.To that end Brad Miller introduced legislation to create more construction in an economy suffering from a glut due to a decade of government induced overbuilding. Miller does not learn from his mistakes.
H.R. 5409, the Residential Construction Lending Act, would create a new residential construction loan guarantee program within the Department of Treasury to provide loans to builders with viable construction projects.And in his bill.
It is outrageous that after the misery created by policies that induced unsound indebtedness among the most vulnerable of Americans, Brad Miller is continues pushing his debt slavery.
The video below lists the sound practices Brad Miller was fighting against.
Brad Miller is a Grade School Economist and you suffer.
out
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Rep.Brad Miller -- And His Implementation of Bastardized Keynesian Theory (Part 2)...
polifrog
Over almost a century Bastardized Keynesian Theory has become the Wmap of public spending policy; it has become the dark energy behind our ever expanding national debt, and is at the heart of our current economic malaise.
I previously explored the implementation of Bastardized Keynesian Theory funded through the expansion of government debt. Bastardized Keynesian Theory is not limited limited to governmental debt, though. Our politicians have turned to expanding private debt through government incentives to fund their Keynesian economic pump. Under Bastardized Keynesian Theory it does not matter who takes on the debt that puts money in the hands of those who spend; all that matters is that money gets into the hands of those who fund economic activity.
Both parties participated in this private-debt funded faux growth and each pointed to Keynesian Theory as validation for their leadership.
Democrats did so with a never ending train of government "affordable housing" programs which incentivized private debt, and more importantly, from a Keynesian perspective, put money in the hands of spenders. The wealth generated by the resulting housing boom did not culminate in equity over time. Instead it stimulated economic growth in consumerism, in vacations and similar non investment as people cashed in on their home's equity.
Conservatives for their part pointed to Keynes as well, albeit in a more convoluted fashion. Ask yourself what happened when the push for Keynesian spending through Fannie/Freddie came in conflict with existing regulations. The answer is that those regulations disappeared in a puff of Conservative Keynesian logic called "financial deregulation". This frees financial institutions to more efficiently implement the government's desire for all of us to spend more trough any number of financial magic tricks that really boil down to riskier loans to get more money in people's hands. Through deregulation Conservatives had unwittingly set the Democrat debt dogs of incentivized lending loose on the American people.
Suddenly more people had more money and spent more money - stimulus - but none of this stimulation showed up on the federal budget, instead it now weighs directly on the finances of the citizenry. End result - A privately funded stimulus.
Liberal Keynesian validated incentives and Conservative Keynesian validated deregulation worked in concert to lead to our housing bubble.
Unfortunately, by removing financial regulations Conservatives had upset the Democrat's delicate governance of home lending. Had the regulations not been removed the housing market may not have bubbled over so quickly. Conversely, I believe deregulation would not have been detrimental to the housing market had it not been for the Democrat's incentivized lending programs. It was as though a dam of regulations was holding back a ravenous river of incentivized lending.
Currently each party accuses the other of causing the housing crash. Democrats point to financial deregulation while Conservatives lay blame on government intervention in the housing market. The reality is that each party is tugging at different parts of the same animal -- Bastardized Keynesian Theory.
For the American people it is called impoverishment.
End of Part 2 of 3
out
Over almost a century Bastardized Keynesian Theory has become the Wmap of public spending policy; it has become the dark energy behind our ever expanding national debt, and is at the heart of our current economic malaise.I previously explored the implementation of Bastardized Keynesian Theory funded through the expansion of government debt. Bastardized Keynesian Theory is not limited limited to governmental debt, though. Our politicians have turned to expanding private debt through government incentives to fund their Keynesian economic pump. Under Bastardized Keynesian Theory it does not matter who takes on the debt that puts money in the hands of those who spend; all that matters is that money gets into the hands of those who fund economic activity.
Both parties participated in this private-debt funded faux growth and each pointed to Keynesian Theory as validation for their leadership.Democrats did so with a never ending train of government "affordable housing" programs which incentivized private debt, and more importantly, from a Keynesian perspective, put money in the hands of spenders. The wealth generated by the resulting housing boom did not culminate in equity over time. Instead it stimulated economic growth in consumerism, in vacations and similar non investment as people cashed in on their home's equity.
Conservatives for their part pointed to Keynes as well, albeit in a more convoluted fashion. Ask yourself what happened when the push for Keynesian spending through Fannie/Freddie came in conflict with existing regulations. The answer is that those regulations disappeared in a puff of Conservative Keynesian logic called "financial deregulation". This frees financial institutions to more efficiently implement the government's desire for all of us to spend more trough any number of financial magic tricks that really boil down to riskier loans to get more money in people's hands. Through deregulation Conservatives had unwittingly set the Democrat debt dogs of incentivized lending loose on the American people.
Suddenly more people had more money and spent more money - stimulus - but none of this stimulation showed up on the federal budget, instead it now weighs directly on the finances of the citizenry. End result - A privately funded stimulus.
Liberal Keynesian validated incentives and Conservative Keynesian validated deregulation worked in concert to lead to our housing bubble.
Unfortunately, by removing financial regulations Conservatives had upset the Democrat's delicate governance of home lending. Had the regulations not been removed the housing market may not have bubbled over so quickly. Conversely, I believe deregulation would not have been detrimental to the housing market had it not been for the Democrat's incentivized lending programs. It was as though a dam of regulations was holding back a ravenous river of incentivized lending.
Currently each party accuses the other of causing the housing crash. Democrats point to financial deregulation while Conservatives lay blame on government intervention in the housing market. The reality is that each party is tugging at different parts of the same animal -- Bastardized Keynesian Theory.
For the American people it is called impoverishment.
End of Part 2 of 3
out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
