Showing posts with label Paul Krugman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Krugman. Show all posts

Monday, February 3, 2014

Carnival Of The Libertarians - Resurrected

I'm the proprietor of the "Carnival Of The Libertarians" franchise. 

I tried to keep it going for a year or so, but got so much non-Libertarian blogspam that I gave up on the project. 

Here's an attempted resurrection of Carnival Of The Libertarians.  If this gets any significant traffic, every few weeks I'll repost what I think are the best liberty-minded blogs, articles, essays and rants. 

*************

Brian Micklethewaite of Samizdata has an excellent idea about how to ensure that our governments have read the constitution

Guess who is the nation's largest drug smuggler?  The DEA.  
An investigation conducted in Mexico found the American government allowed that country’s largest drug cartel, Sinaloa, to operate without fear of persecution. That groups is estimated to be responsible for 80 percent of the cocaine coming into the country through Chicago. In exchange, the leaders of Sinaloa provided the DEA information on rival gangs.
 "But in a Libertarian society, who would decide which cartel gets to be the favorite?"

The Verge has a great piece on the irony of one Nobel Peace Prize winner hunting down another Nobel Peace Price nominee

If you've ever wondered about the ratio of legitimate constitutional legislation vs. bureaucratic "guidance" that you can be fined or jailed for not following, just go here

If you are a Libertarian, you are probably tired of hearing about the greatness of Sweden's healthcare system.  Well, Sweden's healthcare system is now moving toward what the U.S. system just abandoned, while the U.S. is moving towards what Sweden has given up on trying to make work.  Or something.
The main problem is naturally due to the central planning of health care, whether or not it is planned by regional “competing” governments. While access and quality are guaranteed by national law, Swedes usually have to line up for care. As noted above, wait times may be days or weeks for appointments with GPs while several (or many, and increasing) hours for ER care, but the real problem is apparent in specialist care such as surgery where wait times are not uncommonly several months, or even years.

Reason Magazine displays Hillary Clinton's abysmal ignorance on The Drug Trade, The Drug War, and therefore, just about everything else

Holy Nullification, Batman !!!  The New Hampshire Legislature is considering a bill that would mandate that juries be instructed that they could vote to acquit if they disagreed with a law. 

What's the difference in a Statist and a Libertarian?  Just 30 days of reading. 

I love me some NFL, and I look forward to the day when I can legally bet on some NFL.  But according to Reason Magazine, no city should ever do anything to attract the NFL
Sports stadiums not only appear to be a bad deal for tax payers, but having a franchise could also hurt loyal fans by making it difficult to watch their hometown team play thanks to the expansion of sports broadcasts and the complexities of NFL blackout rules. 

“If you have a team in Los Angeles and it doesn’t sell out, they can blackout the game in Los Angeles which means you often lose games…and as a fan there’s no payback in that,” says Daniel Durbin, Director of the University of Southern California’s Institute of Sports Media and Society. 

Though local boosters like LaBonge may continue to dream of having the NFL in the city, it’s becoming increasingly clear that not having a team may be the best deal for tax payers and fans alike. 
Go here and you'll learn that our government has spent $3,000 per American (i.e. $6,000 per taxpayer) to rebuild Afghanistan.  The article doesn't mention how much we spent to tear it down prior to the rebuilding. 

Here's something else on the NFL Cronyism Trifecta - tax exemptions on earnings, free stadiums, and to put some icing on the cake, the city and state provide them with free security guards. 

My father used to tell me that "even a blind hog can find an acorn every now and then".  That bit of wisdom even applies to Paul Krugman, the New York Times Obama apologist.  Go here to see him actually get something right. 

Colbert nails it on U.S. foreign policy. 

A professional drug warrior goes batshit crazy over the mere idea that he might no longer be paid to interfere in the lives of other people. 

Here's Barack Obama's best debate performance.  Ever.  He's debating some dude named Barack Obama. 

Finally (and yes, this is bait for an Instalanche) here's Glenn Reynolds comparing marijuana legalization and the dismal failure of Obamacare

That's all, folks !!






 

Monday, January 20, 2014

Why the sudden increase in Income Inequality ??

If I see one more Rent Seeker trying to get more money for the Democrat Party Vote Farm by pointing out income inequality, unequal growth, and comparisons of The Golden Age Of Disco to now, I'm going to lose my damn mind. 

Yes.  The bottom 10% of the lowest quartile has not done as exponentially well as the upper quintile of the top 1%.  Or something.  

This disparity will only increase with globalization, and I'm glad of it.  Bill Gates has done far more for me than I've done for him.  This also applies to office personnel in Korea and Shanghai who use Bill Gates' software. 
Gates make money in ways that Henry Ford couldn't touch.  Very few Fords made it to Korea and Shanghai in Henry Ford's lifetime. 

Justin Bieber sells well in Russia and in Jerusalem.  Jenny Lind, the "Swedish Nightingale" who died in 1887, did not. 

But I digress.....

Here's one of the only charts that matter.  Male earnings are in red, female in blue.  Bachelor's degrees are at the top, less than a high school diploma is at the bottom. 

Look upon this, and despair. 


Let's take it a notch higher, shall we? 

Paul Krugman had a column in today's issue of Pravda about "The Undeserving Rich".  (Paul Krugman's net worth is now around $2.5 million.  And unless worth is generated by flip-flopping around like a catfish on a riverbank, Krugman is truly undeserving of his millions.) 

The column linked to this gem by Lawrence Mishel and Colin Gordon

Disregard that people generally don't wake up in one income percentile and stay there for their entire lives. 
Disregard that there is a 20% chance that you will, for one year of your life, be part of the Top 2%. 
Disregard that America's poor have higher incomes than the average European. 

Here's the income change from 1979 to 2012, according to Mishel and Gordon.  This is on the front page of the piece linked to by Krugman. 


But, thanks be to God, you can hit the little button on the right and take a look at what has happened since "The Greatest Government Orgy Of Recovery And Jobs Spending In History" took place. 

Despair some more, O Ye Keynesians. 


That's all I've got. 

Hope you finish school.  Don't get pregnant to someone you're not married to, and don't get married until you're about 25.  Don't become an alcoholic or a drug addict.

Abide by that, and you have a 98% chance of escaping poverty. 

Unless, of course, Barack Obama decides to help us some more.  The Porkulus Package, Cash For Clunkers, the Green Scams, and most all legislation of the last 5 years were for the rich, and not for you. 

If Washington keeps helping, then all bets are off.  Go ahead and start your drug habit now. 

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Krugman.

Paul Krugman says that our national debt is not a problem.
Go here for his explanation.  (For those with little time for such, his explanation is "Those who rob Peter to pay Paul Krugman will always have the support of Paul Krugman, especially when Peter is still wearing diapers.")

Here's a handy chart, showing our Fed debt per capita as compared to other countries.


Here are some videos of what's happening in Greece - which doesn't even take the silver or bronze medal in this race.
If you think it can't happen here, you're sadly mistaken.
And this one:
Start saving your metal. The Mormons always put away one year's worth of food. I'm stockpiling Jim Beam and Purina dachshund chow.
 I betcha Krugman's getting nervous too.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

One day, one year, the glass will be half-full

Marvel Variants stopped scamming comic book collectors long enough to send me this helpful chart. 
It shows the "recovery" projections done each year by the Congressional Budget Office. 

If we just keep pulling money out of the productive part of the economy and putting it into the unproductive part, the economy will eventually take off.....

Right? 

Anybody?  Yes?  Dr. Krugman? 

Friday, January 11, 2013

Get your kids and small animals out of the room before watching this one

In which Bill Moyers gives Paul Krugman a nice, long, loving tongue-bath. Not for the faint of heart. Warning: toward the end of the video, both men praise the Depression era's WPA art projects.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

A long rant about Paul Krugman

If Barack Obama/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid and Co. were to break into Fort Knox, throw all the gold into the Atlantic,  then shoot the CEO of every Productive (i.e.  non-green) company, and then, as a follow-up, pour radioactive waste into every functioning oil well in North America, I wonder what Paul Krugman of the New York Holy Times would do to justify it.  Because he would find a way to justify it.    

If the only way to hire one more government bureaucrat involved adding 3 trillion to the national debt, selling our children to China as household slaves, and worsening the condition of every low income family in the nation, I wonder what Paul Krugman would write to justify it. 
Because he would find a way to justify it. 

There are people in politics that I admire.  I think Ron Paul is as close as they come to being an American hero.  But he plugged in the occasional earmark here and there.  Ask him why, and he'll say that that's how the game is played.   It's what the system requires.  He shouldn't have done the earmarks. 
He also should've paid more attention to his newsletters in the 80's, and not allowed any racist commentary to get in.  If you want to be president, you've gotta keep your eye on the ball. 

See???  I just criticized Ron Paul.  I think it helps my objectivity a bit. 

I think the world of former New Mexico governor and LP presidential candidate Gary Johnson, and would probably volunteer to be the mother of his next child.  But I totally disagree with his stance on privatizing prisons, and I don't care how much money it saved the state of New Mexico.  The government should have a monopoly on initiating force.  It's that simple.  I think Gary Johnson is wrong, wrong, wrong on this issue. 

But Paul Krugman?  If Barack Obama were to start locking up people for bing left-handed, confiscating their illegally earned left-handed incomes, and sending them to Montana for "re-education", I truly believe that Paul Krugman would write a column about how this will eventually help the economy. 

Jesus Christ Almighty, what a puppet....


Friday, December 14, 2012

"I can't be overdrawn. I haven't run out of checks." by Paul Krugman

Here's something from Paul Krugman of the New York Holy Times, on why we aren't having a debt crisis. 

We are not having a debt crisis. 
It’s important to make this point, because I keep seeing articles about the “fiscal cliff” that do, in fact, describe it — often in the headline — as a debt crisis. But it isn’t. The U.S. government is having no trouble borrowing to cover its deficit.
There you have it, folks.  From the #1 New York Times cheerleader and apologist for The Teleprompter Jesus. 
It's a variation on the old joke/bumpersticker that says "I can't possibly be overdrawn - I haven't run out of checks". 

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Paul Krugman torture video

I haven't had time to watch all of this, but the Libertarian Blogosphere is touting it as the greatest episode of Paul Krugman torture available for children under 18. 
Posting it here for future reference, in case I'm in a bad mood one day and need cheering up. 

Here's what someone calling himself Tyler Durden had to say about the vid:

Forget Ali - Frazier; ignore Santelli - Liesman; dismiss Yankees - Red Sox; never mind Silva - Sonnen; the new undisputed standard by which all showdowns will be judged happened in Spain over the weekend.

During a debate on Europe's crisis, Pedro Schwartz (a mild-mannered Spanish 'Austrian' economics professor) took on the heavyweight Paul 'I coulda been a Fed Chair contender' Krugman, and - in our humble opinion - wiped the floor with his Keynesian philosophy.

From the medicinal use of more debt to fix too much debt, to the Japanization of world economies and the demand-side bias of every- and any-thing - interested only in the short-term economic growth; the gentlemanly Spaniard notes, with regard to the European crisis, the fact that "Keynesians got us into this mess and now we have to sacrifice our principals so that they can get us out of this mess".

Humble and generous in his praise - though definitively serious with his criticism - Schwartz opines: "Often Nobel prize winners are tempted to pontificate on matters that are outside the specialty in which they have excelled," noting "the mantle of authority whereby what ever they say - whether sensible or not - is accepted with resignation from some and enthusiasm by others."

Krugman's red-faced anger is evident at the conclusion as he even refused to shake Schwartz's hand after the debate.

For 15 minutes of both education and entertainment - this is as good as it gets...

•Starting from around 35:00 the Spanish professor praises and criticizes in a thoughtful and gentle tone

•At around 39:00, he addresses the demand-side description of the world

•Krugman's less-than-happy response (which sparks quite a rowdy argument) begins around 48:20




Monday, September 5, 2011

Becker, Krugman, and spending other people's money

Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker has some more to say about Warren Buffett's assertion that Warren Buffett is undertaxed.... (Buffett is currently in a dispute with the IRS about how much he owes in back taxes, BTW.) 

Warren Buffett has persuaded 68 other billionaires to follow his example and promise to give at least half their wealth to charities. But why hasn’t Buffett proposed also that the very rich make large gifts to the federal government to offset what he considers ridiculously low taxes on their incomes and wealth? My guess is that he and the others who pledged to give away their wealth to charity would have little confidence in how the government would spend such gifts. Buffett, for example, is giving most of his wealth to the Gates Foundation, not to the federal government, and is relying on how this foundation will spend his vast gift. Given this reluctance to make large gifts to the federal government, why should anyone have confidence that the federal government will spend additional tax revenue in a sensible way?


Go here to read Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman's assertion that we need to either print, borrow, or steal enough money to give the government so they can't crank out another stimulus package. 
Can anyone out there name a single instance of wisely spent stimulus money?  Anybody?  Anybody at all? 

Here's a highlight from Krugman's editorial:

Although you’d never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs. The deficit obsession has blocked a much-needed second round of federal stimulus, and with stimulus spending, such as it was, fading out, we’re experiencing de facto fiscal austerity. State and local governments, in particular, faced with the loss of federal aid, have been sharply cutting many programs and have been laying off a lot of workers, mostly schoolteachers.

And somehow the private sector hasn’t responded to these layoffs by rejoicing at the sight of a shrinking government and embarking on a hiring spree.

O.K., I know what the usual suspects will say — namely, that fears of regulation and higher taxes are holding businesses back. But this is just a right-wing fantasy. Multiple surveys have shown that lack of demand — a lack that is being exacerbated by government cutbacks — is the overwhelming problem businesses face, with regulation and taxes barely even in the picture.

No, no, no, no, no.   The United States government is going to spend more this year than it did last year.  They're going to spend more in 2012 than in 2011.  They're going to print or borrow the money to do this. 
ObamaCare is not yet repealed. 
Card Check is not yet dead and buried. 
Our government has not yet taken the suggestions of The Libertarian Party, and gotten the hell out of the economy.  And our government is really, really crappy at intervening in the economy. 

That's enough to make the U.S. a crappy place to do business, or hire people. 
I'm betting that Paul Krugman has made some good investments in his day.  If Congress passes another stimulus package, someone should challenge Krugman to "invest" in the same companies that Pelosi/Boehner/Reid pick for stimulus spending. 

Seriously, can you imagine someone saying "My broker is Barack Obama...and when Barack Obama talks, people listen !"  (This is a 1980's reference.  Sorry for the obscurity.) 



Monday, August 23, 2010

Paul Krugman couldn't find his way out of a sack

It's Fisking time, boys and girls ! 

I'll be needing a few tools....

Scalpel - thanks.
Laptop - got it.
Righteous Indignation - I've got plenty.
Various Free Market, Libertarian and Christian websites - check.
Copy of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics (3rd edition) - got it.
Chainsaw - yep.
Metzenbaum scissors - check.

Let the Fisking begin ! 

Paul Krugman, the most drop-kickable of all Statist apologists, has typed up this little beauty for The New York Times:

NOW THAT'S RICH
We need to pinch pennies these days. Don’t you know we have a budget deficit? For months that has been the word from Republicans and conservative Democrats, who have rejected every suggestion that we do more to avoid deep cuts in public services and help the ailing economy.

My time is limited, and I don't have enough time or space to do anything but ask this simple question....  What in the hell does providing "public services" have to do with helping the economy?  Barack Obama has poured more swill and slop into the "public services" trough than any other president who has ever lived.  It has done nothing to help the economy, but it has saved a lot of Obama supporters government jobs.  All of this was done at the expense of the private sector.

But these same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

These politicians don't want to cut checks, Paul.  They want to let people keep the money they earned.  The money doesn't belong to the government until the government decides to graciously give some back.  They money belongs to the people who earned it.

What — you haven’t heard about this proposal? Actually, you have: I’m talking about demands that we make all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for the middle class, permanent.

That's a nice attempt at class warfare.  But consider this:  47 percent of us pay NO income tax.  If taxes (and spending) are ever going to be cut significantly, the cuts will come from the taxes paid by someone other than the lower classes.  (Subject for further review: how many of our super-rich came from the middle and lower classes.  Another subject for further review:  who woke up one day and decided that America has classes?  One more subject:  Should people try hard to change their economic status?  What would be in it for them?)

Some background: Back in 2001, when the first set of Bush tax cuts was rammed through Congress, the legislation was written with a peculiar provision — namely, that the whole thing would expire, with tax rates reverting to 2000 levels, on the last day of 2010.

Paul says that like it is a bad thing.  Also, note the use of the word "rammed".  In Paul's world, Cash For Clunkers, ObamaCare ® and TARP were "passed".  Tax cuts are "rammed". 

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period.

Let's define Fiscal Irresponsibility.....How about "failure to reduce spending to reflect income"? 

It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

Ditto.  Bush spent money like a recovering alcoholic cowboy.  So did Daddy Bush.  So did Reagan.  But they were mere hints of what was yet to come, a series of John The Baptists preparing the way for The Teleprompter Jesus....

Obviously, the idea was to go back at a later date and make those tax cuts permanent. But things didn’t go according to plan. And now the witching hour is upon us.

That's because The Crips And The Bloods The Republicans and Democrats will never, ever voluntarily cut spending.  That's why we need to elect some Libertarians and get back to a two-party system. 

So what’s the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right —

Once again Paul reveals his belief that letting people keep their own money is expensive.  MAKING PEOPLE PAY RIDICULOUSLY HIGH TAXES IS EXPENSIVE ! ! !

....but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

Abso-freakin'-lutely.  Keep the whole thing.  Starve the beast.  Federal employees have compensation and pensions anywhere from 50% to 100% better than those found in the private sector.  And from what I've seen, they have about half as much responsibility.  What is so criminal about not wanting to be robbed to support the Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous?

And there’s a real chance that Republicans will get what they want. That’s a demonstration, if anyone needed one, that our political culture has become not just dysfunctional but deeply corrupt.

The mind recoils.  Paul Krugman won a Nobel in economics.  Next thing you know, they'll be giving Nobels to someone in the last three Democrat administrations, like Obama, Gore, or Carter.  Oh.  Never mind. 

What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

That logic assumes that the super-wealthy will continue to produce income if they know that Obama is going to get more of the (potential) profit. 
But $680 billion....That's the amount of the previous stimulus package, right?  Well, if we don't give 'em the money, they can't redistribute it to their friends, right? 

For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

Let's not ask why the states needed $26 billion dollars.  We don't want to go there.  Surely California was spending its money responsibly, and isn't on the hook for ridiculous public employee pensions....

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year.

Paul, you ignorant slut.  The money wouldn't GO to the richest 1 percent.  It would STAY with them.  They are the ones who are producing the alleged $680 billion.  They would get to spend it in the way that they think best, instead of forking it over to be spent the way George Bush, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid thinks best. 
Also, Paul, I'm betting that you are well paid.  I'm also betting that you have a tax expert go through your taxes, looking for every possible deduction.  I'm just betting that you talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.  

But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

You can also take the same group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick out 470 of them.  These 470 are paying no income tax. 
You can probably pick out another 330 of them who are government employees or suppliers, and who live off of taxes paid by the top 100. 
What does all this mean? 
It means we have too many people living off of money taken by force.  If you announce that more money is going to be taken for redistribution to Statists, the infamous top 5% is going to start hiding its money.  Wait and see. 

How can this kind of giveaway be justified at a time when politicians claim to care about budget deficits?

Well, because of Texas A&M University, I'm having a budget deficit.  Therefore, I spend less. 

Well, history is repeating itself. The original campaign for the Bush tax cuts relied on deception and dishonesty. In fact, my first suspicions that we were being misled into invading Iraq were based on the resemblance between the campaign for war and the campaign for tax cuts the previous year. And sure enough, that same trademark deception and dishonesty is being deployed on behalf of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

It is now impossible to cut taxes for anyone except the wealthiest 50% of Americans, dumb ass. 
Speaking of dishonesty, our government is now claiming that we're pulling the combat troops out of Iraq, but we are still going to have 50,000 troops over there, and I think they have guns.  Whassup with that? 

So, for example, we’re told that it’s all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

Perhaps it is an aspirational thing.  I don't make several million a year, but I would like to.  I will try harder if I can keep the several million a year, instead of giving more of it to our costly adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and California. 

Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

GIVING THE MONEY?  GIVING THE MONEY?  THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOING TO GIVE PEOPLE THAT MONEY ! ! !   THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAKE THE MONEY, AND BLOW IT ON STUPID CRAP ! ! ! 
Paul, please go to "Clues 'R' Us", and get one. 

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

According to The Washington Post, we're spending $25,000 per kid in many public schools.  How much more do you want to blow per classroom, under the heading of  "saving teaching jobs"?  Is there any amount that would be enough? 
So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let’s hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America’s future.

1)  People spend their own money more wisely than 3rd parties spend it. 
2)  Taxes must be taken by force. 
3)  High taxes act as a disincentive to wealth creation.
4)  Make-work jobs, those created by government, eventually run out of money. 
5)  Paul Krugman couldn't find his way out of a sack.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Paul Krugman is pumped ! ! ! !

New York Times economist, Barackagandist, and all-around Statist lapdog Paul Krugman is pumped.  I mean PUMPED ! ! 
This is the chart that did it for him.  I gotta admit, my chair is getting a little moist because I'm looking at this chart:

Here's Dr. Krugman:
In other words, the Medicare actuaries believe that the cost-saving provisions in the Obama health reform will make a huge difference to the long-run budget outlook. Yes, it’s just a projection, and debatable like all projections. And it’s still not enough. But anyone who both claims to be worried about the long-run deficit and was opposed to health reform has some explaining to do. All the facts we have suggest that health reform was the biggest move toward fiscal responsibility in a long, long time.

Ok, here's my "explaining", since Krugman is feeling macho and has thrown down the gauntlet....

Things are expensive when they are 1) in demand, and 2) scarce. 
ObamaCare® does nothing to lower demand for medical care.  And it does nothing to reduce the scarcity of doctors, nurses, hospital, drugs, or bedpans. 
All it does is increase the size of the bureaucracy and prevent insurance companies from charging premiums to customers who aren't sick yet. 
Therefore ObamaCare® will raise the cost of healthcare, not lower it. 

I bet that I'm right, and that Paul Krugman turns out to be wrong. 
I repeat....Thirty years from now, it will turn out that a blogger/shipping manager with an Education degree from Delta State University was right about a simple economic concept.  The Nobel Prize winner in Statist Power Grabs Economics will be proven wrong.  

Monday, July 5, 2010

Mowing yards, unemployment, the joys of the lake, and perverse incentives

Imagine that you need to find a neighborhood kid to mow your lawn. 
You bang on three different doors, but none of the kids want to come outside.  You learn that the parents at all three houses are paying their children to "house sit".  The kids could make a little more money mowing yards than house-sitting (i.e. - doing nothing) but not much.  It's not worth their while to get up and mow yards just for an additional, say, $1.00 per hour. 
For you, the frustrating thing is that all three groups of parents owe you money.  They are using your money to pay the kids to sit and play video games, watch TV, and surf the internet all day. 
So you either mow your own yard or you hire a lawn service whose employees are already putting in 60 hours a week. 

*******

I've been unemployed before, once for about 4 weeks.  It wasn't fun, but it was comfortable.  I went to the unemployment office downtown, filled out some paperwork, and then checked my mailbox for a check every week. 
I made a few efforts to find jobs that paid as much as the one I had lost.  There were none. 
Every two or three days I put on a suit and made the interview rounds, but The Cooking Channel beckoned.  Blockbuster Video had tons of movies I'd not yet rented.  Short trips to the lake were suddenly possible every day. 
Various companies offered me jobs that were almost exactly the amount of my unemployment compensation.  But why in the world would I want to take one of those and work for 40 hours a week when I could get the same amount by staying at home and learning how to cook Peking Duck and watching old episodes of Monty Python?  Where were the incentives? 
The incentives eventually came in the form of Mrs. Whited, who told me to take a job, any job, because she was tired of coming home from working all day and seeing me unshaved, unwashed, and on the couch. 
I took a job that paid around .75 cents an hour more than my unemployment compensation.  Within about a year and a half, I was up to my old salary again. 
But man, it was hard to tear myself away from cable TV, Blockbuster Video, and the lake. 

******

I've interviewed three different people in the last month who knew that the jobs I was trying to fill were perfect for them.  They knew that they would fit in well.  They had friends who worked for me.  They were perfect for what I needed. 
But dammit, the government was also paying them (with your money) to sit at home.  The government's pay rate is about 80% of what I offer to start at some of those jobs. 
Unemployment insurance is a good thing.  But when it is automatically extended and extended and extended, just to show how compassionate politicians are in an election year, it can totally destroy incentives.  But get ready for a barrage of political ads denouncing the evil meanies in Congress who voted against extending unemployment benefits through the end of The Obamessiah's term.   

******

Hope everybody had a good 4th.  I'm gonna go get they guys started in one of the warehouses and then see if I can find a kid to mow my yard.

******

Addition: Go here to see a totally different point of view from The Obamessiah's pet journalist/economist Paul Krugman.  Mr. Krugman neglects to mention the root cause of so much of the unemployment we're seeing - The Teleprompter Jesus demonizing employers, forcing corporations to become nannies, and demanding that those who put their capital at risk pay even more tribute money to Washington if they're succesful.  
I've been able to see things from Paul Krugman's point of view a few times in the past, but it was uncomfortable having my head that far up my ass.    

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Hell, let's put tariffs in place between Fort Worth and Dallas

Don Boudreaux, economics professor at George Mason University, reminds me of an abusive husband.
Every morning of his life, he gets out of bed, takes a shower, eats some breakfast, brushes his teeth, and then
kicks the living snot out of New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman.

In his New Year’s Day column, Paul Krugman argues that protectionism can create jobs in times of unemployment. (Lots of other problems plague this column, by the way.)

If Krugman is correct, why stop at national borders? Just think how many jobs Congress could create by encouraging states to erect their own tariff walls? High-taxing and heavily regulating states would then be able to protect their workers from states with lower taxes and less-burdensome regulations. California wineries would never again lose market share to rivals in Oregon and Washington state. Michigan autoworkers would never again be displaced from their jobs by workers in Tennessee and South Carolina.

Here comes Boudreaux's Karate Kid Crane Kick:


Given Krugman’s assumption that restricting consumers’ freedom to make cross-border purchases increases the total number of jobs in economies suffering unemployment, why let all those borders between Maine and California go to waste? Turn those borders, too, into barriers to trade and watch American employment skyrocket!

Go here for another excellent post called "Nation's Don't Trade With Each Other: Individuals Do".

If that's not enough, go here, and read Fabulous Freddy Bastiat's idea for an un-railroad. (First published in 1845, BTW.) This is a railroad that would allow cheap and easy transportation between countries, so they could enjoy the benefits of each other's strengths. But the railroad would be closed in all places where it would hurt local inefficient producers. (This would create and save jobs ! ! ! !) In other words, the railroad would be closed in all the places where it was most needed.

Tariffs serve no purpose but to negate the gains provided to society by technology, labor, ingenuity, determination and progress.

You read something like this, and wonder how Paul Krugman ever won a Nobel Prize.
Oh.... Never mind.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Saturday Morning Reading

Where to begin, where to begin....
Let's start with the left, briefly pause in what passes for the center, move through the right, and then get to the good stuff.
From
Talking Points Memo.

President Obama took questions today after giving a speech on the economy at a community college in Pennsylvania. The first question, from a college sophomore, challenged Obama to look at new ways of creating jobs.
"I really appreciate how you're trying to stimulate the economy," the student said. "Maybe, if you checked out some of the statistics about legalizing prostitution, gambling, drugs and non-violent crime in order to stimulate some of the economy."
The audience broke into giggles.
"I appreciate the boldness of your question. That will not be my jobs strategy," Obama responded, to more giggles. "Part of what you're supposed to do in college is question conventional wisdom. So you're doing exactly what you're supposed to be doing."

But there was no response from The Teleprompter Jesus on why he's going to continue spending billions fighting victimless crimes and imprisoning the participants.

Also from Talking Points Memo, an ugly little story on 8 million incidents of police requesting GPS data. I don't think any warrants were required....

Under a new system set up by Sprint, law enforcement agencies have gotten GPS data from the company about its wireless customers 8 million times in about a year, raising a host of questions about consumer privacy, transparency, and oversight of how police obtain location data.

What this means -- and what many wireless customers no doubt do not realize -- is that with a few keystrokes, police can determine in real time the location of a cell phone user through automated systems set up by the phone companies.
And while a Sprint spokesman told us customers can shield themselves from surveillance by simply switching off the GPS function of their phones, one expert told TPM that the company and other carriers almost certainly have the power to remotely switch the function back on.

They know where you are. They know when you are there. They aren't bothering to get 8 million warrants, either.
One more thing from Talking Points Memo:

The New Jersey state senate is scheduled to vote on legalizing gay marriage next week.
Sen. Ray Lesniak (D) announced Thursday on the Statehouse steps that the Judiciary Committee will take up the bill on Monday. The full senate will vote on the measure Thursday.



Coming just days after the New York state senate defeated a gay marriage bill, the New Jersey votes present a big risk. It's not clear if the votes are there.

That's enough of Talking Points Memo. Reading their other crap about Copenhagen, the merits of a Pelosian Healthcare System, and.....well, it makes my head hurt. Let's move on to the mainstream middle:

CNN has a link on their front page entitled Big Improvement For Job Market. Our unemployment rate, according to those who keep the books, has gone from 10.2% to 10.0% ! ! ! Hit the second link. I think so many people were laughing about it that they took down the story.
That's enough from CNN. In the words of God in the Book Of Revelation, Chapter 3, verse 16, "But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
Here's some stuff from Real Clear Politics, one of the best political aggregator sites:

The Washington Post is waking up from its Rip Van Winkle-ish slumber to report on Climaquiddick a little more. Those poor guys have been distracted by the giant sucking sound of all the potential grant, research, and stimulus money going back to the taxpayers as a result of the leaked emails.

It began with an anonymous Internet posting, and a link to a wonky set of e-mails and files. Stolen, apparently, from a research center in Britain, the files showed the leaders of climate-change science discussing flaws in their own data, and seemingly scheming to muzzle their critics.
Now it has mushroomed into what is being called "Climate-gate," a scandal that has done what many slide shows and public-service ads could not: focus public attention on the science of a warming planet.
Except now, much of that attention is focused on the science's flaws. Leaked just before international climate talks begin in Copenhagen -- the culmination of years of work by scientists to raise alarms about greenhouse-gas emissions -- the e-mails have cast those scientists in a political light and given new energy to others who think the issue of climate change is all overblown.
The e-mails don't say that: They don't provide proof that human-caused climate change is a lie or a swindle.

Well, yeah, they do. They were government funded, they were trying to raid The Treasury, they were acting to silence criticism, and they've thrown away all the original data. Much like the outfit in East Anglia, NASA has been ignoring Freedom Of Information Act requests for two years.

The RCP guys also link to a New York Times piece by Obama Economics Apologist, Bush Basher, and therefore Nobel Prize Winner, Paul Krugman, who says that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has done a very bad thing.

At his confirmation hearing for a second term as chairman, Bernanke emphasized that the government has spent less than half of the money in the $787-billion package passed earlier this year and that analysts are still determining its impact.

“Only about 30 percent of the funds have been disbursed,” Bernanke said. “It’s a little bit early to make a strong judgment, a little bit early to decide whether or not to do additional fiscal actions.”

Krugman responded to the Bernanke quote with the following: "Bear in mind also that fiscal policy is slow to get underway. Waiting to be absolutely, totally sure that we really need more strikes me as deeply irresponsible."

"This was a very unhelpful statement."

You're dang right, it was unhelpful. There's going to be some kind of changing of the guard in 2010, the clock is ticking, and the Red Digital Readout is working its way down to zero.

Bernanke's most irresponsible acts? He won't allow an audit of The Fed. He won't shut down The Fed. But he has one advantage that Paul Krugman doesn't.
Bernanke isn't totally full of bullshit. Bullshit is not leaking from his ears. Bullshit doesn't impact Bernanke's ability to walk without slipping in it.

This is taking longer than I thought, and I have to go help with a church project we're doing with a low-income family. I'm gonna hit "Publish Post", and comment on some other links later today. Sorry.
*********************

Ok, I'm back. Let's move on to the good folks at Hot Air. They've got a story about some Afghan guerillas parading into an abandoned U.S. military facility in Nuristan province.

“Glad Tidings of Victory,” a video released by the Taliban’s Al-Emirat video production unit, shows the Afghan guerrillas strutting around an abandoned U.S. military base in Nuristan province. Taking a filmed “victory” lap around an American facility might make some sense as a propaganda tool. But taking a giggly victory lap on an elliptical in said base – as two Taliban enthusiastically do in the video – is a big infowar fail."

"....While some items can make for effective propaganda symbols, the display of (of Taliban fighters exercising on) lower body exercise machines, generally speaking, tends to dilute their impact."

I've brought this story to the attention of The Jihadist Safety Consultant, and he'll probably chime in sometime next week. We can't have terrorists working out on infidel exercise equipment without proper training, can we?
They've got another link to a Pajama's Media piece on the Dutch team that's been studying the ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro.

Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

....DOSR calls Al Gore’s iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro “unfortunate” — since it now seems to be mainly the result of “natural climate variations.”

With the exception of handing Ross Perot some portraits of Smoot and Hawley, Gore's entire career has been "unfortunate". His Grammys, Oscars, and Nobels were "unfortunate". But his iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro has been a godsend.
Yes, we should be grateful for Gore's choice. We are fortunate.
There would've been no way to disprove an Al Gore scam to save the melting ice cap on Mount Asfertimondig Hoittpifflesteinin Grogger on the forbidden planet Nekthar.

Hot Air also links to a Weekly Standard piece on Climaquiddick:

No drug company could get through the FDA approval process with data handling this slapdash, yet the climate policy process contemplates trillions of dollars in costs to economies around the world based partially on this incompetent work. Worse, it suggests the possibility that the CRU circle might not be able to replicate its own findings from scratch, let alone outside reviewers. No wonder Mann keeps issuing new versions of his hockey stick....

Climate change is a genuine phenomenon, and there is a nontrivial risk of major consequences in the future. Yet the hysteria of the global warming campaigners and their monomaniacal advocacy of absurdly expensive curbs on fossil fuel use have led to a political dead end that will become more apparent with the imminent collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process. I have long expected that 20 or so years from now we will look back on the turn-of-the-millennium climate hysteria in the same way we look back now on the population bomb hysteria of the late 1960s and early 1970s--as a phenomenon whose magnitude and effects were vastly overestimated, and whose proposed solutions were wrongheaded and often genuinely evil (such as the forced sterilizations of thousands of Indian men in the 1970s, much of it funded by the Ford Foundation).
Today the climate campaigners want to forcibly sterilize the world's energy supply, and until recently they looked to be within an ace of doing so. But even before Climategate, the campaign was beginning to resemble a Broadway musical that had run too long, with sagging box office and declining enthusiasm from a dwindling audience. Someone needs to break the bad news to the players that it's closing time for the climate horror show.

Of course Climate Change is a genuine phenomenon. It's a freakin' cliche. "If you don't like the weather in Texas, just wait a few minutes", etc etc etc.
Thank God this farce is almost over. But think of the millions that industry, interest groups, and individuals have had to spend to protect themselves from the Statist Chicken Littles.

That's enough from the Left, the Right, and the bland Center. On to the Libertarian-leaning forces of goodness.....
Here's some stuff from Reason magazine's Hit & Run section.

First, they link to something in The Nation, where you can get a Garden Noam For Your Killing Fields. (It's a Noam Chomsky pun. Lefty academic Noam Chomsky was an apologist for Cambodia's Killing Fields. Get it? A Garden Noam For Your Killing Fields?)



....along with a Karl Marx plush toy,



....and some Great Revolutionaries Finger puppets.


That's Gandhi on the far left, whose non-materialist philosophy required the wealth of 3 princes to maintain, and whose peaceful approach required hundreds of thousands of soldiers to implement.
Then there's mass-murderer Che Guevera.
Then there's Leon Trotsky, whose revolution resulted in the death of millions from purges, starvation, or worse. Yeah, worse.
And finally, on the far right, Nelson Mandela.
Chomsky, Marx, Gandhi, Che, Trotsky, and Mandela. Treat those guys like an SAT question. Five were famous statists, one was a victim of the state. Circle the correct answer.

But wait, there's more. They've also got a link to a Bowlsheviks bowling T-shirt that you can order through Mother Jones for only $39.95. It has Lenin's profile on the bowler !


Lord have mercy. I guest if you're dense enough to continue buying into The Nation's post-Marxist, death of the Bolshevik dream, collectivist nostalgia, you're probably dense enough to purchase a $39.95 T-shirt.

Reason also has some good stuff on Climaquiddick.

Americans honor the courageous informant, the gutsy citizen who stands against the savagery of the profit-mongering conglomerate. Well, sometimes. It appears, believe it or not, that there are those who aren't religiously tethered to this sacred obligation.

....Yet Barbara Boxer, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is off hunting bigger game.

"You call it 'ClimateGate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" Boxer clarified during a committee shindig. "We may well have a hearing on this; we may not. We may have a briefing for senators; we may not." Boxer, as steady as they come, went on to put the focus where it belongs: on hackers. She warned: "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated. ... This is a crime."

If this hacker(s) is unearthed on U.S. soil (or anywhere in the Middle East, actually), Boxer can jettison the guilty party to Gitmo for some well-deserved sleep deprivation.

The more we get into this mess, the more it looks like a whistleblower, not a leaker. Remember when Whistleblowers were Time magazine's Person Of The Year a while back?

Somehow, I don't think this anonymous whistleblowing (or hacking) hero will get that honor. This hit 'em all where it hurts.

Let's move on to Radley Balko's Agitator blog. Mr. Balko has a link to the greatest newspaper correction ever published.
And here's a surprising story on Senator Max Baucus....

....the man who is apparently going to save health care for all of America nominated his girlfriend to be a U.S. Attorney. So yeah. I can’t see any problem with having our health care system dictated by politicians. No problem at all. I’m sure all decisions will be made based on what’s best for America and stuff. Never on what’s best for the politicians themselves.

It's because Free Market Capitalism is just too corrupt.
Now let's move on to Instapundit.

Instapundit has a link to something written by Free Market Goddess Virginia Postrel called "Gifts And The Knowledge Problem".

An article in Sunday’s NYT travel section carries the season-appropriate headline, “Brad Pitt’s Gifts to New Orleans.”
The piece suggests, rather gently, that the actor has made a common mistake: giving what pleases him rather than what the recipient wants.
The displaced residents of the Ninth Ward would like comfortable, inexpensive, and quickly available houses.
Pitt prefers cutting-edge architecture. Residents are grateful for his generosity and good wishes, but their gratitude is tinged with regret for what might have been if he’d heeded their desires.
....The problem of buying good presents for other people, even people you supposedly know well, illustrates that old familiar Hayekian concept, the knowledge problem. If you can't even give your loved ones the right presents, how likely is it that a central authority could make the right decisions for everyone?

Well, Virginia, I believe in Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I trust them to make the best decisions for my health, my company, my family, and whether or not we should go to other continents and shoot people. Who needs knowledge when we have this level of trust?

Finally, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit shares an update to one of his favorite charts. The lines in blue were provided by The Teleprompter Jesus Economic Team. The red lines are provided by employers who are scared shitless about what those Messiahs are going to do next, and are understandably reluctant to invest anything with this batch of goobers at the helm.

Please remember this chart the next time you hear them call for another Stimulus Package.


That's it for today, Saturday November 5th, 2009. I can't believe there are bloggers out there who claim there's never anything to write about.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Paul Krugman - Lets imitate Germany

Here's Paul Krugman, who won a Nobel in Economics for consistently saying that the economic policies of George W. Bush, the failed economic policies of the past 8 years, were bad, bad, bad.

Free to Lose - Paul Krugman

Consider, for a moment, a tale of two countries. Both have suffered a severe recession and lost jobs as a result — but not on the same scale. In Country A, employment has fallen more than 5 percent, and the unemployment rate has more than doubled. In Country B, employment has fallen only half a percent, and unemployment is only slightly higher than it was before the crisis.

Don’t you think Country A might have something to learn from Country B?

Well, if someone were genuinely curious about the question, he would first ask "From what baseline are both countries starting?"

This story isn’t hypothetical. Country A is the United States, where stocks are up, G.D.P. is rising, but the terrible employment situation just keeps getting worse. Country B is Germany, which took a hit to its G.D.P. when world trade collapsed, but has been remarkably successful at avoiding mass job losses. Germany’s jobs miracle hasn’t received much attention in this country — but it’s real, it’s striking, and it raises serious questions about whether the U.S. government is doing the right things to fight unemployment.

Mr. Krugman might want to amend that to read "has been remarkably successful at avoiding additional mass job losses."
He goes on to suggest new programs to pay employers for employees that they don't need, using money from, uhmmm....you.
But, I digress.
Here's the German unemployment rate, relative to the U.S.


Go here to see some additional history. Any U.S. political party that tried to emulate Germany's economic policies and results - 10% unemployment during the previous economic boom - would be thrown out.
Every now and then, we have to drop back and punt. If we aren't happy with the results, we throw out the current regime and put in a new one.
Don’t you think Country A might have something to learn from Country B?
No.
In closing, here's an October, 2009 article about German Chancellor Angela Merkel's next challenge: Germany's rising unemployment rate.
What the hell was Krugman thinking?
Die quickly, mainstream media. Die quickly.
Update from 8:00 p.m. Here's what Don Boudreaux of George Mason University had to say about Krugman's article. Posted a couple of hours after mine, and making the same points and then some.
What does this mean? It means that if GMU Economics Professors and Fort Worth Shipping Managers take time out of their day to rip your editorials to shreds, just because its so dang easy, you should consider hiring a fact-checker.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Paul Krugman tries for a Teachable Moment and fails

Here's the White House pet economist Paul Krugman, learning the hard way about statistical polling samples:



Whoops.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Forget Bailing Out The Banks. Someone Bail ME Out.....

The B Word - New York Times
Here's a link to Paul Krugman in the New York Times, discussing the possibility of a "financial system" bailout.

People (aka subprime mortgage recipients) have been trying to purchase houses that they can't possibly afford. Banks have been assuming (falsely) that the value of homes would continue going up, meaning that if the person taking out the loan defaulted, the bank would still own a home worth more than the loan amount. Some people were able to purchase very nice homes relative to their income level. Banks were able to make money like, well, bankers.

But now, the "subprime" people are bailing on home loans. And banks now own houses that aren't worth the loan they issued.

Please allow me to digress....and remember, I can barely allocate my 401K funds properly.

I like to play Blackjack.

I'm never as close to God as I am in that golden moment when the dealer turns over her hole card. (It is always "her" hole card, since male blackjack dealers are bad luck, and I avoid them at all costs.)

Ordinarily, when I go on a cruise in the winter, I do quite well. I also make money in Shreveport (Diamond Jack's Casino ONLY. The Horseshoe Casino is bad luck.) I play Basic Strategy, combined with a system where I double up after the first loss, followed by a smaller increase after the 2nd loss, repeating this until I'm solvent again. Ordinarily, I can cover a one week bar tab and make headway against the cost of some shore excursions. (One other rule - any time I've doubled my initial buy-in, I must leave the table for a while. To do otherwise is tempting Fate. And that's very bad luck.)

Last December was horrible. (Princess Cruise lines.) The cards wouldn't cooperate. For my strategy to work, I have to win one hand out of six. It wasn't happening. A lot of unbudgeted money went from The Whited Sepulchre to Princess Cruise lines.

When I gamble, I'm trying to get something for nothing. Granted, I'm putting capital at risk, but it's not like I'm digging ditches.

I've had a good long string of luck, taking cruise ship casinos for a lot of money, by my standards. But it suddenly ended in December. And it hurt. Bad. (I'm still trying to determine the source of the bad luck. I didn't sit at any tables with male dealers. My keys were always in my left pocket. I consistently began all sentences with vowels. My mojo should've been flawless. None of my actions or wagering decisions could be called "subprime". Compared to the bankers who got us into this subprime mess, I'm almost saintly.)

Anyway, these losses have put The Whited Sepulchre economy into a free fall.

Therefore, I expect you to bail me out. Even if I have an income that's higher than most. I do, after all, have a certain lifestyle to uphold. Appearances must be maintained. I don't have time to wait on the George Bush stimulus package check of $600 to arrive in the mail sometime in April or May. (Next Saturday is the 22nd. 22 is a lucky number, since it signifies a dealer bust hand. I must get back to the tables ! ! !)

Let the bailout begin ! ! !

Here's some of Krugman's article, yanked out of context: If these numbers shock you, they should. But the big bailout is coming. The only question is how well it will be managed.....And we need it quickly: things are falling apart as you read this.

You see, this is urgent. Please let me know ASAP when you're going to send your contribution.