Why free markets are better than quotas for achieving "diversity"

I have a co-worker/friend at Jukt Micronics that I'm going to call "Jim". 
Jim is gay. 
He's not political about it, he doesn't go to the bars, and he doesn't crusade. It doesn't matter either way, and long-time readers of this site know that I don't care.
 
Jim just got one heck of a promotion.  He's been elevated into the stratosphere of the Jukt Micronics sales department where he'll be taking care of what'll soon be Canada's #1 retailer, if it isn't already.

Jim wasn't given this job to fill a quota, or to show off how "diverse" we are.  Jim did a heck of a job when he was running Customer Service, and if we hadn't hired and promoted him, someone else would've hired him and possibly made a lot of money with him selling to Canada's #1 retailer.

Our #1 salesperson is usually a woman named....  Well, I dare not speak it.   We all fear her.  Competitors won't hire her, because they're afraid she'd take over.  One doesn't achieve the highest sales total every year by merely being quota-filler.  She has the highest sales by making heroic personal sacrifices, taking care of bidness, and squashing everyone else like a bug.   

Our plastic, wood and metal shop Production Managers are Black, Hispanic, and Black, respectively.  Dig down a little deeper and you'll find a Cambodian clear plastic supervisor, a Cambodian design supervisor, a Serbian wire shop supervisor, and another gaggle of bosses who all seem to be from the same neighborhood in Mexico.  My boss, the Operations V.P., is from Juarez. 

Our meetings sometimes look like the United Nations' break room.  Nobody planned it, nobody even wanted it.  The owners just started going for the best people they could afford, and that's what happened.

Compare my workplace to this....  It's from an article in City Journal by Heather MacDonald called "Multiculti U", about the insane expenses associated with "diversity" programs in the California college system.  Hit this link to read the whole thing. 

In September 2012, for instance, as the university system faced the threat of another $250 million in state funding cuts on top of the $1 billion lost since 2007, UC San Diego hired its first vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion. This new diversocrat would pull in a starting salary of $250,000, plus a relocation allowance of $60,000, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500, and the reimbursement of all moving expenses. (A pricey but appropriately “diverse” female-owned executive search firm had found this latest diversity accretion.) In May 2011, UCLA named a professional bureaucrat with a master’s degree in student-affairs administration as its first assistant dean for “campus climate,” tasked with “maintaining the campus as a safe, welcoming, respectful place,” in the words of UCLA’s assistant vice chancellor and dean of students. In December 2010, UC San Francisco appointed its first vice chancellor of diversity and outreach—with a starting salary of $270,000—to create a “diverse and inclusive environment,” announced UC San Francisco chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann. Each of these new posts is wildly redundant with the armies of diversity functionaries already larding UC’s bloated bureaucracy.

Good God in heaven, what a mess. 

Full disclosure:  Jukt Micronics isn't remotely "normal".  It's an insane place to work.  Hours are long.  It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter.  The first time I went to lunch with a plant manager, he warned me that "we are a screaming company".  And yet we've accidentally achieved a level of diversity that other places can't even dream of, and it didn't cost us a dime.  We made money doing it!!!   

Competition for employees, for raw materials, and for ideas has a way of cleansing and purifying things.  What if we had decided early on to not hire any ethnic or social minorities?  Who would it have hurt more, Jukt Micronics or the potential employees that we would've unwisely declined to hire?  I think it would've killed us. 

Read the entire Heather MacDonald piece if you get a chance.  And then try to decide which organization has the best approach to achieving diversity: California's college system, or a bunch of Texans who wanted to make the best display fixtures for the best price.

And congratulations, Jim!   

Economic Insanity From One Of Our Worst Presidents

Here's something from one of FDR's press conferences.  May 31st.  1935.
Anyone wondering why a recession was turned into The Great Depression need look no further than the economic goofiness of this Messiah On The Potomac.

1. And then finally you have a fifth great occupation of human life—the growing of crops. It evidently does not make any difference, after I grow my wheat, whether it is put in an elevator in a different State, perhaps to be commingled with other wheat and sold in Liverpool, or New York or Germany or in any other State of the Union-it does not make any difference. The fact is that the wheat was grown in one place, and therefore the growing of crops cannot be considered in any shape, manner or form as coming under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Perhaps wheat actually in transit under this decision may come under it. But it could not if it were in storage, for example in a bin, because there it would be tied to a definite locality.
2. And so it does bring us up rather squarely as to the big issue in the country and as to how we are going to solve it. The big issue is this: Does this decision mean that the United States Government has no control over any national economic problem?
3. The simple example is crop adjustment. Are we going to take the hands of the Federal Government completely off any effort to adjust the growing of national crops, and go right straight back to the old principle that every farmer is a lord of his own farm and can do anything he wants, raise anything, any old time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants? You and I know perfectly well that if we completely abandon crop control—I don't care whether it is the present method or, let us say, the McNary-Haugen method, because, after all, that is a Federal method, too—if we are to abandon Federal relationship to any national crop, we shall again have thirty-six-cent wheat. You can't stop it. Under present world conditions we will have five-cent cotton. That is obvious.

What FDR didn't realize is that cheap wheat and nickel cotton are good things.  It means that people all over the world are working to give us things at the absolute lowest price possible at the time.  

But it was more important to FDR to keep plantation owners fat and happy on their plantations, and wheat farmers rich and prosperous all over Kansas and Iowa.  To hell with everyone who could've profited and prospered from cheap bread and clothing.    

That was the message from Washington until the attack on Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese distracted him.  The Great Depression ended.  

We now have a president who claims to be working very, very hard to end our economic slump.  

Note to Japan:  I'll have a ring of lights around Carswell Air Force Base tonight.  No one will be hurt.  Please be loud.  

Also, I found this pic while looking for the Obamessiah/FDR button.  

This decision didn't help either....

If we have televangelist Robert Tilton, who needs ObamaCare??

I love this guy. 
This is Televangelist Robert Tilton.  If it sounds like he's speaking gibberish, it's because he is.  He thinks that he has the gift of "tongues", spoken of in the book of Acts.  If you have the gift of discernment, you can interpret his gibberish, and use it as a guide for your life.  Or something. 

This video is only 40 seconds long. 

If you can make it from the .20 to the .30 mark without laughing out loud, you're a better person than me. 

Occam's Razor and Operation Fast And Furious

Here's the philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor:

Occam's razor is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best one. If you are in Texas and hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. 

Let's apply that principle to the magnificent abortion known as Operation Fast And Furious, where the people responsible for the Post Office, VA Hospitals and the DMV decided to let a bunch of guns "walk" across the Mexican border.  Just to see where they would go.....  

Here's Mickey Kaus of The Daily Caller:

The fuss over the Fast and Furious “gunwalking” scandal must be mystifying to voters who don’t know why Second Amendment types think the seemingly insane operation was launched–namely to establish a predicate for gun control here in the U.S..** Powerline bloggers debate the issue here & here. Don’t wait for the MSM to fill you in on this crucial bit of undernews. …

What I don’t understand is why, according to both Powerliners, the “gun control” theory requires the administration to have wanted to “increase bloodshed in Mexico”? Why increase? It requires more paranoia than even I’m able to muster to think that the Holder Justice department’s goal was to produce more violence and death (in order to grab headlines, etc.). Why isn’t there a far more plausible and mundane possible purpose: The administration wanted to document that the guns used in Mexican drug gang crimes–including violent crimes–came from the U.S.. There might be more crimes, there might be fewer. There could be less bloodshed, there could be increased bloodshed–but that wasn’t the point. The point was that gun controllers could argue that X% of the guns, or X number of guns, found at crime scenes were sourced from this country–whatever the overall level of crime. That would establish the factual basis for gun control the same way the Dartmouth studies and Atul Gawande’s articles allegedly established a factual basis for Obamacare. Entirely plausible, and not criminally evil! Just amazingly stupid. …

P.S.: I’m not sure Second Amendment enthusiasts should argue that letting lots of guns “walk” across the border will inevitably “increase bloodshed” or “promote violence.” Isn’t that the gun-controllers’ argument–that More Guns = More Violence in some kind of rigid equation?…

Guns don’t kill Mexican gang war victims. Mexican gangsters kill Mexican gang war victims. …

Go here for your very own Operation Fast And Furious T-shirt !!!

Liveblogging the Meet The Press debate

I had sworn off of this, but Tivo changed channels for me during breakfast....

Here's what's going on during the Meet The Press Republican debate.   

David Gregory, in order to prove that Meet The Press and the Republican Party are both hip and groovy, announces that some of the questions will come from Facebook.  Perhaps from the city of Farmville. 

Michelle Bachmann is no longer present as the Sarah Palin surrogate, and this is good. 

FIRST QUESTION: Why does Mitt Romney stink?

Gingrich:  Romney is timid, and he wants to grow up to be Barack Obama.  He is BarackLite.  When he makes love, he pretends to be Obama. 

Romney:  I'm proud of being the John The Baptist for ObamaCare.  I also believe that I created jobs as governor, unlike New Mexico governor Gary Johnson who claims that he created NO jobs as governor.  I have no freakin' clue about the true role of government in the economy.

Santorum:  Romney didn't want to run again as governor of Massachusetts.  He didn't fight.  I did the right thing, and fought until I got my ass kicked by a Democrat. 

Gingrich:  Romney ran the red light.  He talked too long ! 

Romney:  Ted Kennedy made me do it.

Ron Paul:  The question should be about the issues, not Mitt.  However, Mitt did endorse the single payer system, the TARP bailouts, the Fed printing money for their friends.  Romney hasn't challenged the idea of a U.S. Overseas Empire.  That's what we should be talking about.  Not whether Mitt and his Magical Mormon Underwear can defeat Obama. 

Perry:  Well I'm the one who can 1) reinvigorate the Tea Party, 2) defeat Obama and 3)  ummmm...Ooops !

SECOND QUESTION:  How will you tell Americans that your spending cuts you are going to cause pain?

Huntsman:  Back to Mitt Romney... He criticized me for putting my country first. 

Romney:  Huntsman went to work for Obama.  If you look closely at the older versions of Mormon doctrine, black men can't enter the highest levels of Mormon heaven.  As a Mormon, Huntsman should know that, and be ashamed. 

Huntsman:  Ok, ok, ok, I would tell Americans that I embrace the Paul Ryan plan.  It takes a pitifully small amount of money out of the budget during the next 10 years. 

David Gregory:  In the name of the prophet Lehi, PLEASE give me 3 programs you would cut....

Huntsman:  Social Security and Medicare?  Maybe?  But I'm not going to touch Defense. 

Santorum:  Means testing on Social Security.  Food Stamps.  Medicaid.  Give it all back to the states.  Give 'em a time limit.  Including Social Security.  If you ain't dead within 20 years, you get no more money. 

Gingrich:  I taught history at the college level for years, and I'm going to lull you to sleep without answering the question.  These are not the droids you are looking for.  I'm going to improve the government, not cut it. 

Perry:  I'm going to get it right this time !!   Commerce, Energy, and Education !!!

The crowd goes totally wild. 

Break for advertisements. 

SECOND QUESTION CONTINUED:

Santorum:  People think that they should have the same plan that Congress has.  They have a choice.  (I'm finding myself liking Santorum on this one.) 

David Gregory:  Grover Norquist has gotten some Congressmen to sign a pledge for No More Taxes.  Warren Buffett thinks the rich can pay more. 

This is where I go stark, raving mad, and I'm going to skip Romney's response on this one.  Warren Buffett has made his billions, and NOW he wants EVERYONE ELSE to pay more in taxes.  His Berkeshire Hathaway group has been in a two-year lawsuit against Washington to avoid paying an extra billion or so in taxes. 
Warren Buffett is a hypocritical old fraud. 

Huntsman:  The loopholes make our entire tax system silly.  We don't govern, we sell exceptions to the tax code. (My words, not his.) 

Gingrich:  I worked with Tip O'Neill.  I worked with Bill Clinton.  You have to do that to get things done. 

Romney:  We didn't just work with Democrats, we were totally immersed in them in Massachusetts.  We developed relationships with them.  We did it so long that we now refer to ourselves in the plural.  We, we, we. 

David Gregory:  Dr. Paul, why is your legislative record so poor?  Why aren't your bills passed?

Ron Paul:  This shows how out of touch Congress is with the American people.  (Paul hits this one out of the park online and live, something like 3 times per week.)  Shit, can you imagine Congress voting against any bill that cuts spending? 

Santorum:  Ron Paul has never accomplished anything, never done anything, he's never successfully worked with anybody.  But if he's Commander In Chief, he's going to bring our troops back home to defend the U.S. !!   Can you believe that ????  We need somebody to maintain the status quo !!!

Ron Paul:  Changing foreign policy mistakes that go back to Woodrow Freakin' Wilson takes time.  We can't be all things to all countries.  Yeah, it takes a while.  In the meantime, let's audit the Fed !!

Santorum:  I've tuned Rick Santorum out.  He's doing talking points.  I Will do better on his next question. 

Huntsman:  I will do better than Obama by demonstrating trust.  Democrats will trust me because, after all, I spent the last 3 years representing one. 

Perry:  I would buck my party by talking about their spending levels.  We need a part-time Congress, which implies that only millionaires could afford to serve in Congress. 

Rick Perry just showed the world that he is stark raving mad. 

Advertising break. 

David Gregory:  Let's bring in some newspaper and TV people to help with the questions. 

Newspaper guy:  Home heating oil is $4.00 a gallon.  Congress is cutting the subsidy.  Whatcha gonna do?

Huntsman:  I feel your pain.  He'll break up the oil distribution monopoly.  (Why not drill, baby, drill?  Or crank up that Keystone pipeline?)

Ron Paul:  Subsidies are bad policy.  On energy, we should de-regulate.  50% of the transaction is the monetary unit.  When you create money out of thin air, prices go up.  If you subsidize somebody and print money to do it, prices go up. 

Romney:  What we don't need is a Federal Government saying we're going to solve all problems for all people.  Give these issues to the states. 

TV Guy:  Romney, you once said that the gay community needs more support from Republicans, according to a GLBT periodical.  Whatcha gonna do now? 

Romney:  I oppose same-sex marriage.  But I don't discriminate against them.  And yet in death, we live. 

Santorum:  I think gays and lesbians should be treated with respect and dignity.  But no marriage or adoption rights.  And yet in death, we live. 

Newspaper Guy:  Are right to work laws a federal issue?

Perry:  Only because of existing federal laws.  It shouldn't be a federal issue.  I'm not anti-union, I'm pro-job.  If you want to grow jobs, pass right to work legislation.  Education, Energy, and Commerce. 

Romney:  Carpenters union makes them better carpenters.  But lets talk about the pure, undiluted evil of government unions - they should have the same salaries and bennies as the private sector. 

Santorum:  I would support Federal Right to Work legislation.  I've worked with unions. 

Another break.  I wish they'd gotten Ron Paul going on the unions. 

THIRD QUESTION:  Jobs, jobs, jobs. 

Gingrich:  The long term answer to the oil problem is to make supply and demand work for us, not against us.  Flood the market with the commodity that is scarce. 

Romney:  Obama didn't cause the problem, but Lord Have Mercy, he made it worse.  Obama is anti-business.  (And he oughta say that Obama's current improving jobs record is only due to the size of the workforce shrinking.  People are just giving up, and those people don't get counted.) 

Newspaper guy:  What about out of state power plants polluting New Hampshire? 

Romney:  I don't know this specific regulation.  We've got to find a way to keep the air clean.  (In economics, this is called an externality.  My transaction with party #1 does harm to party #2.  There are also positive externalities, BTW.) 

Gingrich:  My Environmental Solutions Agency would be better than the EPA, despite having the loathsome buzzword "Solutions" in the title.  Much well-deserved ridicule directed at EPA. 

TV Guy:  Is Obama a Patriot?  Is he evil? 

Perry:  Obama is a f***ing Socialist. 

Santorum:  When I voted for the prescription drug benefit, it was not the act of a f***ing Socialist.  It was a way to require people to have health savings accounts.  No irony intended. 

TV Guy:  Is healthcare a right? 

Ron Paul:  Entitlements are not rights.  You have a right to your rights, liberty, and the fruits of your labor.  There are no "group" rights.  One group is not entitled to take something from someone else. 

Newspaper Guy:  NH motto is "Live Free or Die". 

Huntsman:  "Live Free or Die" is an awesome motto.  New Hampshire wants a leader who will unify.  Huntsman, by use of his word leader, shows that he doesn't understand the NH motto.  We don't need leaders, we need people to maintain the infrastructure and secure the borders and interfere in disputes.  Huntsman as a "leader" would betray that ideal. 

Advertising break. 

David Gregory:  Let's scattershoot for a while. 

Santorum:  Russia and Korea have nukes, but Iran is a Theocracy.  "They think the next life is better than this one."  That is scary.  We can't treat them like normal people.  Therefore, they are different.  Santorum's extreme Catholicism kinda leaves him exposed on this one, right? 

Gingrich:  Concerning my attacks on Romney, Mitt Romney and his firm Bain Capital, committed acts of Capitalism.  There is nothing lower than committing acts of Capitalism.  I want Romney to admit that is his former staff running the anti-Gingrich PAC. 

Romney:  I can't direct ads of a PAC.  It's illegal.  Everything in those ads is true. 

Romney vs Gingrich spat ensues.  They're both silly people.  They both love Big Government, and their records show it.  That's why it's so easy for them to dredge up stuff like this. 

Gingrich:  We've going to make a movie about Romney committing acts of Capitalism. 

Santorum:  It doesn't take a village.  It takes a family.  Obama has a secular ideology. 

Ron Paul:  If president, I will continue to preach liberty.  Sound money.  National Defense.  Defend Liberty and Liberty !!

Yet another ad break.  I had no idea that a debate would cost this much.  I'm getting hungry, as this project has disrupted breakfast.
 I am, however, 100% live.  Had to slow down to catch some stuff, but fast-forwarded through the ads. 
So far, Ron Paul is winning.  Why?  Because he's right. 

What the hell?  I was going to completely finish this liveblog on time, and the TV just cut it off, just like that?  No closing statements?  No nothing, just The End? 

Time to scramble some eggs. 

Enough of the political crap.  It's a nice day.  Hope y'all have a good one !!!

On the Arizona shooting

I'm not a Palin fan, but this one nails it....

My Congresswoman got shot in the head - And all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.

Ok, we've got the flags at half-mast, Barry and Michelle have stood outside the White House for their moments of silence, we've had a memorial/rally/cometogether moment in Arizona, complete with T-shirts, and I can only imagine the levels of fake emotion we're going to be exposed to at this weekend's NFL playoff games. 
For the love of God....The stadium opened the concession stands for this memorial service....

How in the hell are they tying this to violent political rhetoric?  Is the goal to get people to shut up while this Chicago con artist and his goons continue to loot the Treasury?  Do we need to be polite and civil while pointing it out? 

In which an anti-population growth nutcase gets his wish....

Go here.

Suggestion for an October political ad

Here's an idea for a great Libertarian political ad for October. 
The text is from The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby, on the Cash For Clunkers travesty. 

IN THE market for a used car? Good luck finding a bargain: The price of “pre-owned’’ vehicles has climbed considerably over the past year. According to Edmunds.com, a website for car buyers, a three-year-old automobile today will set you back, on average, close to $20,000 — a spike of more than 10 percent since last summer. For some popular models, the increase has been much steeper. In July, a used Cadillac Escalade was going for around $35,000, or nearly 36 percent over last July’s price.



Hit the video.  Seriously.  Hit the video of these guys pumping Sodium Silicate into the engine of a Volvo, under orders from our President.  You don't have to watch, just listen while you read the rest. 
Now, back to our commentary from Mr. Jacoby. 

....Part of the answer is that the supply of used cars is artificially low, because your Uncle Sam decided last year to destroy hundreds of thousands of perfectly good automobiles as part of its hare-brained Car Allowance Rebate System — or, as most of us called it, Cash for Clunkers. That was the program under which the government paid consumers up to $4,500 when they traded in an old car and bought a new one with better gas mileage. The traded-in cars — which had to be in drivable condition to qualify for the rebate — were then demolished: Dealers were required to chemically wreck each car’s engine, and send the car to be crushed or shredded.


Crank up the volume on the video.  Hear the whine?  Does it sound like vandals destroying a car?  Destroying the economy?  Destroying employment?  DO YOU HEAR THE NOISE OF BARACKAGANDAN LUNACY?????
Congress and the Obama administration trumpeted Cash for Clunkers as a triumph — the president pronounced it “successful beyond anybody’s imagination.’’ Which it was, if you define success as getting people to take “free’’ money to make a purchase most of them are going to make anyway, while simultaneously wiping out productive assets that could provide value to many other consumers for years to come. By any rational standard, however, this program was sheer folly.

Briefly cut away to a clip of some obviously low-income people wandering through a used car lot.  Then go back to the shrieking Volvo. 

Of the 700,000 cars purchased during the clunkers frenzy, the estimated net increase in sales was only 125,000. Each incremental sale thus ended up costing the taxpayers a profligate $24,000.

Show a Cash For Clunkers-era clip of some Yuppies driving a new Prius out of a parking lot.  Be sure they've transferred their Obama bumpersticker from the Clunker to the Prius.  Then go back to the whining Volvo. 

Even on environmental grounds, Cash for Clunkers was an exorbitant dud. Researchers at the University of California-Davis calculated that the reduction of carbon dioxide attributable to the program cost no less than $237 per ton. In contrast, carbon emissions credits cost about $20 per ton in international markets.


The whole carbon credits scam is environmentalist bullshit, but some people believe in it.  Kinda like Catholics used to believe in purchasing Indulgences.  Let it stay in the ad. 

Using Department of Transportation figures, the Associated Press calculated that replacing inefficient clunkers with new cars getting higher mileage would reduce CO2 emissions by around 700,000 tons a year — less than Americans emit in a single hour. Likewise, the projected reduction in gasoline use amounted to about as much as Americans go through in 4 hours. (And that’s only if you assume — contrary to historical experience — that fuel consumption decreases when fuel efficiency rises.)

When all is said and done, Cash for Clunkers was a deplorable exercise in budgetary wastefulness, asset destruction, environmental irrelevance, and economic idiocy. Other than that, it was a screaming success.

Cut to the 3:55 mark on the video.  Watch the guy with the fire extinguisher.  Listen to the vandals giggle.  Cut to a graph of declining employment.  Cut to a quick graph of declining home sales.  Cut to a quick graph of increased automobile prices.  Then go to one more voiceover.

Do you really want to send the people who did this back to Washington? 
My name is The Whited Sepulchre, and I approved this message. 

Pass it so we can see what's in it, Write it so the author can read it, Re-educate us so we will swallow it.

Here's House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on ObamaCare® explaining that we had to pass the ObamaCare® bill to see what is in it. 


But wait....Here's Senator Max Baucus affirming that he wrote the Healthcare bill, but hasn't really, like, read it:

Baucus replied that if Libby residents (his townhall meeting audience) assembled an economic development plan, he would do what he could to help, and he took credit for “essentially” writing the health care bill that passed the Senate.

“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language,” Baucus said. “We hire experts.”

Yep.  Politicians don't write laws.  Lobbyists do.  And they have never, ever had such a flock of sheep just waiting to be trimmed. 

Finally, here's Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, talking to ABC News Radio:

“Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the reform law] and what isn’t,” Sebelius told ABC News Radio in an interview Monday.
With several vulnerable House Democrats touting their votes against the bill, and Republicans running on repeal, Sebelius said “misinformation given on a 24/7 basis” has led to the enduring opposition nearly six months after the lengthy debate ended in Congress.
“So, we have a lot of reeducation to do,” Sebelius said.

No, no, no....you guys are doing just fine.  Keep talking, keep talking.  We were supposed to pass the bill to see what was in it, but they guy who "wrote" the bill says that it isn't done yet because it's still being massaged by lobbyists and lawyers, but one day soon, ObamaCare® will be revealed in all its glory. 

Finally, here is one last video.  If you're an American taxpayer, you paid for it, and it features a cross-section of America promoting some ultra-wholesome Big Brotherism.  I didn't spot an Apache Bricklayer or a Transvestite Blacksmith, but all other categories of folks are covered. 
This thing will live forever. 
As long as people like to laugh, they will play this video.  In my retirement, I want to set up a theatre to play "An Inconvenient Truth", "The Rocky Horror Picture Show", and this government video, every weekend at midnight, for the edification of the young. 
Lord have mercy, historians and economists are going to have fun with this thing:

Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative ????

This post is about the funniest 3 word combination in the English language. 

But first, check out this movie trailer.  I WILL see this if it ever makes it to Texas:



There's only one problem. Why are they featuring Republican politicians?  Especially Ronald Reagan? 

Ronald Reagan was able to increase the amount of money coming into the Treasury by using a simple method.  He lowered taxes.  GDP increased as people hid less of their income and put it to work in sensible ways.  It's better to have 15% of a thousand dollars than 85% of a hundred dollars.
 
But under Reagan, our government spent money like, well, like Republicans. 

Here's a chart showing U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP.  It's from Wikipedia, but it roughly follows the info to be found here:

Look at the pink band running from 1981 to 1993, the Gipper/Poppy Bush era. 
Does that look like they believed "Government Is Not The Solution; Government Is The Problem?"

Here's another look at the same data, formatted for entertainment value....

Enough about Reagan.  Here's the Cato Institute's Veronique De Rugy on George W. Bush's spending habits:

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.


During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.

Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.

President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.

Here's some more research from Ms. De Rugy, from the November 8th, 2008 issue of Reason magazine.  (Remember, this was written before the current Messiah started his spending spree):
 
"When it comes to out-of-control spending, conventional wisdom says the Democrats are most likely to bust open the coffers. That's why many fear an increased Democratic majority in Congress topped by a Democratic president. And we should be afraid. Democrats are indeed big spenders. Second only to Republicans."
 
She goes on to rank the possible combinations of Republican vs. Democrat control of Congress and the Presidency, going from kinda bad to worse:
 
1) Democratic White House, Republican Congress

2) Republican White House, Democratic Congress
3) Unified Republican or Democratic rule.

You cannot, you will not, get spending under control by electing Republicans.  Until recently, Republicans held all the spending records.  Democrat spending might be sillier, and easier to poke fun at, but by every measurement, until recently, the Democrats spend less money.  If you look at the long term, FREAKIN' DEMOCRATS are the fiscal conservatives ! 

We simply have to start electing Libertarians to high office.  There is no other solution. 

Oh, and the funniest 3 words in the English language? 
Small Government Republican

LeBron James, U-Haul rental rates, the Ocean Endeavor drilling rig, and Central Banks

Speaking of LeBron James moving from a state with a 7% state income tax (Ohio) to a state with a 0% state income tax (Florida) and apparently not even considering a state with a 12% income tax (New York).....


Mark Perry at the Carpe Diem economics blog has been looking at U-Haul rental rates between Ohio and Florida.  LeBron isn't the only one leaving the Buckeye state. 

One-way rental rates for a 26-foot U-Haul truck on August 4, 2010

Miami, FL to Cleveland, OH: $1,000
Cleveland, OH to Miami, FL: $1,457
Premium to leave Ohio: 45.7%

Orlando, FL to Cleveland, OH: $834
Cleveland, OH to Orlando, FL: $1,301
Premium to leave Ohio: 56%

Tampa, FL to Cleveland, OH: $917
Cleveland, OH to Tampa, FL: $,1379
Premium to leave Ohio: 50.4%

Assuming that one-way U-Haul rates are based on relative demand, there are lot more people and trucks leaving Ohio for Florida than vice-versa, resulting in large premiums to rent trucks going to Florida and large discounts for trucks going to Ohio.

Any idea why?  Here's something from an earlier post about Ohio:

While LeBron's departure got extraordinary media attention, it is hardly unique. In the early 1990s, Ohio was the home of 43 Fortune 500 companies. Twenty years later the number is 24. Census Bureau data show that from 2004-2008 Ohio saw a net outmigration of $6 billion of income and some 97,000 taxpayers. Even Ohio's famously liberal Senator, the late Howard Metzenbaum, moved to Florida late in his life to reduce his estate taxes.

Just for grins, here's the U-Haul relative demand between Detroit (relatively statist) and Dallas (relatively libertarian).

In related news, from The Houston Chronicle:

Diamond Offshore announced Friday that its Ocean Endeavor drilling rig will leave the Gulf of Mexico and move to Egyptian waters immediately — making it the first to abandon the United States in the wake of the BP oil spill and a ban on deep-water drilling....

Larry Dickerson, CEO of Houston-based Diamond, signaled that other of his company's rigs could be relocated, too.


"As a result of the uncertainties surrounding the offshore drilling moratorium, we are actively seeking international opportunities to keep our rigs fully employed," Dickerson said. "We greatly regret the loss of U.S. jobs that will result from this rig relocation."

It was unclear how many U.S. jobs could leave with the Ocean Endeavor, but typically more than 100 workers are on the rig at any given time, doing everything from drilling to cooking meals. Onshore, a network of businesses supplies the rigs with groceries, equipment, uniforms and drilling materials.

"It's not unusual for an energy service company to have 1,000 vendors that they buy from or purchase services from," noted Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands. As a result, Brady said, the economic damage from the moratorium stretches far and wide.

And finally, from Fortune magazine:

A new report from Morgan Stanley analyst Emma Lawson confirms what many had suspected: the dollar is firmly on its way to losing its status as the reserve currency of the world.

We already knew that central banks have preferred gold to dollars, and that they're even selling their gold for cash; now, according to Lawson's data, it seems that those central banks prefer almost anything to dollars.

So what do LeBron James, the Ocean Endeavor drilling rig, and Central Banks have in common? 
They all respond to negative incentives.  All three of them are abandoning places and commodities run by crazy people. 
Just like you do, every time you get a chance. 

*******

A fresh coat of Whitening to Newsalert for all the links. 

Joseph Stack destroys Austin Tx IRS building with airplane; creates and/or saves hundreds of jobs

A reader of Radley Balko's Agitator blog took him to task for not commenting on the libertarian who flew a plane into an IRS building.  Here's Mr. Balko's response:

Sorry for my silence. It’s just that yesterday’s events have stunned me into a moral crisis. I’ve been up all night recontemplating my entire political philosophy. It’s so clear now how a philosophy that espouses nonviolence and peaceful, voluntary exchange could drive a man to fly a plane into a building in a murderous, suicidal act of hate.


I can’t believe I didn’t see it all along.

Well said, Mr. Balko. 

It's too soon to be posting anything glib or flippant about this, and I apologize ahead of time for being insensitive.  But....
This guy did a huge amount of damage to a building, and it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to repair it. 
Just think of the jobs created or saved....
Here's a video from the Cash For Clunkers era, illustrating the same flawed concept.  Let's destroy things to stimulate the economy. 




Pic came from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.