Showing posts with label Required Reading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Required Reading. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Awesome Rant

The AVI has a message for our friends on the left.
You have believed that politicians saying nice things to people who are oppressed - and insisting that everyone else say nice things - is more important than the downtrodden having actual jobs and dignity. You have believed that people having stuff collectively is worth more than self-respect. You have voted for that and you have gotten it, and when it tanks, you must not think it is some accidental misfortune.

You have believed that regular people will not get good things unless government makes it happen. You take it as a given that something called the market will treat people unfairly, and civil servants, not perfect but well-meaning, are needed to prevent abuse. You have thrown your lot in with the idea that the government is far less corrupt than private industry, and have hired that fox to guard the henhouse. This is exactly where Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Rangel, Dodd, et alia are taking us. When government corruption prevents recovery, it is not because you have had the bad luck to elect a few bad apples in with the good folk.

All this especilaly fitting the nitwits in Congress threatening to take action against specific individuals, even as they WROTE IN THE LAW that AIG had to honor it's contracts.

This gets scarier by the minute.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Horrifying

Horrifying that a state government would allow this to go on, even after they knew it was happening.

I wonder what, if any, criminal charges will be filed. I have an idea.

None.

Remember this when you wonder why people don't trust the government. Remember this when you think criminals get too many rights. These scumbags put countless people in prison. Or worse.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Hair of the dog

I agree with and liked this explanation on why government spending won't get us out of a recession.

One could make the argument that the money pumped into the economy won't come from bread baked today and taken from the baker, but is instead from bread baked in the future, and that in the future, there will be such economic growth that the baker will have lots of excess bread.

But isn't that (spending now what we will have to pay off in the future) what got us into this mess?

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Socialism Lite?

Don Boudreaux answers the question "Is Obama a Socialist?"
This "socialism-lite," however, is as specious as is classic socialism. And its insidious nature makes it even more dangerous. Across Europe, this "mild" form of socialism acts as a parasitic ideology that has slowly drained entrepreneurial energy – and freedoms – from its free-market host.

Could it happen in America? Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas's words.

The fact that each of us depends upon the efforts of millions of others does not mean that some "society" transcending individuals produces our prosperity. Rather, it means that the vast system of voluntary market exchange coordinates remarkably well the efforts of millions of individuals into a productive whole. For Obama to suggest that government interfere in this process more than it already does – to "spread" wealth from Joe to Bill, or vice versa – overlooks not only the voluntary and individual origins of wealth, but the dampening of the incentives for people to contribute energetically to wealth's continued production.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Constitution? Who needs it.

The Judge on Congress and the President ignoring the Constitution.
The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).

Read all of it.

Be careful what you wish for...

An excellent essay on the European economic model, and why it might not be what y'all really want.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Your government at work

The TSA's effectiveness exposed.
Schnei­er and I walked to the security checkpoint. “Counter­terrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better,” he said. “Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.” This assumes, of course, that al-Qaeda will target airplanes for hijacking, or target aviation at all. “We defend against what the terrorists did last week,” Schnei­er said. He believes that the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. “Spend the rest of your money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response.”

Schnei­er and I joined the line with our ersatz boarding passes. “Technically we could get arrested for this,” he said, but we judged the risk to be acceptable. We handed our boarding passes and IDs to the security officer, who inspected our driver’s licenses through a loupe, one of those magnifying-glass devices jewelers use for minute examinations of fine detail. This was the moment of maximum peril, not because the boarding passes were flawed, but because the TSA now trains its officers in the science of behavior detection. The SPOT program—“Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques”—was based in part on the work of a psychologist who believes that involuntary facial-muscle movements, including the most fleeting “micro-expressions,” can betray lying or criminality. The training program for behavior-detection officers is one week long. Our facial muscles did not cooperate with the SPOT program, apparently, because the officer chicken-scratched onto our boarding passes what might have been his signature, or the number 4, or the letter y. We took our shoes off and placed our laptops in bins. Schnei­er took from his bag a 12-ounce container labeled “saline solution.”

“It’s allowed,” he said. Medical supplies, such as saline solution for contact-lens cleaning, don’t fall under the TSA’s three-ounce rule.

“What’s allowed?” I asked. “Saline solution, or bottles labeled saline solution?”

“Bottles labeled saline solution. They won’t check what’s in it, trust me.”

They did not check. As we gathered our belongings, Schnei­er held up the bottle and said to the nearest security officer, “This is okay, right?” “Yep,” the officer said. “Just have to put it in the tray.”

“Maybe if you lit it on fire, he’d pay attention,” I said, risking arrest for making a joke at airport security. (Later, Schnei­er would carry two bottles labeled saline solution—24 ounces in total—through security. An officer asked him why he needed two bottles. “Two eyes,” he said. He was allowed to keep the bottles.)

We were in the clear. But what did we prove?

“We proved that the ID triangle is hopeless,” Schneier said.

Read it all.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Timely

An article written by Rothbard in 1969, that everyone should read today.
There are, however, some critical problems in the assumption that the market economy is the culprit. For "general economic theory" teaches us that supply and demand always tend to be in equilibrium in the market and that therefore prices of products as well as of the factors that contribute to production are always tending toward some equilibrium point. Even though changes of data, which are always taking place, prevent equilibrium from ever being reached, there is nothing in the general theory of the market system that would account for regular and recurring boom-and-bust phases of the business cycle. Modern economists "solve" this problem by simply keeping their general price and market theory and their business cycle theory in separate, tightly-sealed compartments, with never the twain meeting, much less integrated with each other. Economists, unfortunately, have forgotten that there is only one economy and therefore only one integrated economic theory. Neither economic life nor the structure of theory can or should be in watertight compartments; our knowledge of the economy is either one integrated whole or it is nothing. Yet most economists are content to apply totally separate and, indeed, mutually exclusive, theories for general price analysis and for business cycles. They cannot be genuine economic scientists so long as they are content to keep operating in this primitive way.

But there are still graver problems with the currently fashionable approach. Economists also do not see one particularly critical problem because they do not bother to square their business cycle and general price theories: the peculiar breakdown of the entrepreneurial function at times of economic crisis and depression. In the market economy, one of the most vital functions of the businessman is to be an "entrepreneur," a man who invests in productive methods, who buys equipment and hires labor to produce something which he is not sure will reap him any return. In short, the entrepreneurial function is the function of forecasting the uncertain future. Before embarking on any investment or line of production, the entrepreneur, or "enterpriser," must estimate present and future costs and future revenues and therefore estimate whether and how much profits he will earn from the investment. If he forecasts well and significantly better than his business competitors, he will reap profits from his investment. The better his forecasting, the higher the profits he will earn. If, on the other hand, he is a poor forecaster and overestimates the demand for his product, he will suffer losses and pretty soon be forced out of the business.

The market economy, then, is a profit-and-loss economy, in which the acumen and ability of business entrepreneurs is gauged by the profits and losses they reap. The market economy, moreover, contains a built-in mechanism, a kind of natural selection, that ensures the survival and the flourishing of the superior forecaster and the weeding-out of the inferior ones. For the more profits reaped by the better forecasters, the greater become their business responsibilities, and the more they will have available to invest in the productive system. On the other hand, a few years of making losses will drive the poorer forecasters and entrepreneurs out of business altogether and push them into the ranks of salaried employees.

If, then, the market economy has a built-in natural selection mechanism for good entrepreneurs, this means that, generally, we would expect not many business firms to be making losses. And, in fact, if we look around at the economy on an average day or year, we will find that losses are not very widespread. But, in that case, the odd fact that needs explaining is this: How is it that, periodically, in times of the onset of recessions and especially in steep depressions, the business world suddenly experiences a massive cluster of severe losses? A moment arrives when business firms, previously highly astute entrepreneurs in their ability to make profits and avoid losses, suddenly and dismayingly find themselves, almost all of them, suffering severe and unaccountable losses? How come? Here is a momentous fact that any theory of depressions must explain. An explanation such as "underconsumption" — a drop in total consumer spending — is not sufficient, for one thing, because what needs to be explained is why businessmen, able to forecast all manner of previous economic changes and developments, proved themselves totally and catastrophically unable to forecast this alleged drop in consumer demand. Why this sudden failure in forecasting ability?

Go read the whole thing. Learn something today.

Friday, June 27, 2008

From the Things That Should Scare You Department

And the Fairness Doctrine Department, I bring you the Quote of the Week.

"I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do," - Senator Christopher Bond, MO (R)

Yep. A Republican U.S. Senator said that.

What was that you were saying about Democrats being Socialists?


Hat tip: Cattallarchy

Monday, June 16, 2008

See into the future

This is what government run healthcare is going to look like.
Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.

To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets. The country’s Ministry of Health argues that the campaign will keep the spread of diseases like diabetes and strokes in check.

The ministry also says that curbing widening waistlines will rein in a rapidly aging society’s ballooning health care costs, one of the most serious and politically delicate problems facing Japan today. Most Japanese are covered under public health care or through their work. Anger over a plan that would make those 75 and older pay more for health care brought a parliamentary censure motion Wednesday against Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, the first against a prime minister in the country’s postwar history.

Enjoy!

Thursday, May 8, 2008

The story of Cory Maye and Ron Jones.

Iraq ian't the only war we should be trying to stop.


More info here, and here.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

May Day

As I have in the past, I direct you to the annual May Day Rememberance Posts at Distributed Republic.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Liberty and Irony

Apparently, it is illegal to celebrate Jefferson's birthday by dancing at his memorial.

You should be very, very angered by this.

But you probably aren't, because we've given up. Welcome to the Police State. Now shut up.

Friday, April 4, 2008

Hey, a training post

But it's not about me.

An online bud, Matt Perryman, was recently interviewed by Leigh Peele. It's a long read, but worth it.

If you are looking for information about my training, read my training log.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Micro vs. Macro

An awesome transcript of a lecture to a Macroeconomics class by Gary North.

I think he might be a MicroEconomist.

Me too.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Juiced?

Here's a fantastic site, called Steroids and Baseball, that investigates the true impact on baseball of performance enhancing drugs, and also debunks some myths about those evil steroids.

What I find interesting is the data actually shows what I've thought for quite some time: Baseball players have been using PEDs for longer than what's called "The Steroid Era".

I promise there's someone in the Hall Of Fame who used steroids.

Via Hit and Run

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The real cost of the drug war

Radley Balko (The Agitator) as been covering the Corey Maye case for quite some time (in all honesty, he's a big part of why Maye is no longer on death row). On Monday, he did a really nice job putting a face (several faces, actually) on the cost of the drug war.
Thank this war. The goddamned drug war. It is so incredibly senseless and stupid. And it’ll continue to claim and ruin lives, because too few politicians have the backbone to stand up and say after 30 years, $500 billion, a horrifyingly high prison population, and countless dead innocents, cops, kids, nonviolent offenders, decimated neighborhoods, wasted lives, corrupted cops, and eviscerations of the core freedoms this country was allegedly founded upon, the shit isn’t working. It’ll never work. It never has. It’s a testament to the facade of truth that is politics that no leaders from the two majors parties have in thirty years been able to say this. That maybe, just maybe, we’re doing it wrong. Maybe, just maybe, kicking down doors in the middle of the night and storming in with guns in order to stop people from getting high….isn’t such a good idea. Maybe, just maybe, the idea getting tips from racist, illiterate, drug-addicted informants about which doors, if you kick them down, will lead to drugs? Well maybe that isn’t such a sound policy, either. We can’t even get one of the leading candidates for president to say that. The safe position is always to advocate for more money, more government power, more militarism—and less freedom, less common sense, and less worry about collateral damage. Sensibility, honesty, or compassion? Too risky.
Take the time to read the entire post, it's very moving.

And think about this the next time you hear one of the candidates talking about his faith, and how he exhibits it. I'm pretty sure Jesus would have something to say to us about Corey May and Ron Jones.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Alrming Environmental Catastrophe!

Well, not really. Warren Meyer at Coyote Blog has an outstanding post showing an example of how poor the science really is when it comes to Catastrophic Global Warming, and how the media eat it up.

Read up. And if you have the time, check out his video and paper, linked in the post.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The Magic of Prices

Milton Freidman on pencils, prices, and peace.

It's worth 3 minutes of your life to watch it.




Hat tip: Cafe Hayek