Backlog of Social Security Disability Cases Leaves the Terminally Ill Waiting - WSJ.com
You wrote, "...the right wants to turn Americans into starving slaves, motivated by pain."
Perhaps you've never heard of such terms as "regression to the mean" and a "free lunch" - but, clearly, these are issues which the left and unions (and many less educated are both ignorant of and would choose and do choose to ignore).
The US has shown that education and new skills are necessary to compete (e.g. Apple, Facebook, etc.) but the government and unions believe labor-intensive manufacturing jobs can be brought back to the US (e.g. totally ignoring the regression-to-the-mean global economic situation).
To compound the liberal mistake, liberals buy into telling people they can continue to live an economic life that circumstances globally have changed - plus, additional social and entitlement benefits.
This is like living on credit cards when either prices go up and incomes don't - or both.
The US has known and been lectured since the 1960's and 70's that a day will come when its use of an outsize share of the world's resources will end.
To this day, Obama and his cohorts are telling voters they can ignore such a situation.
What I learned about socialism in Eastern Europe under communism and one reads about daily with respect to countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain is that more and more of what goes on economically is being done away from high taxes and the regulated economy - i.e. by the "grey economy".
Of course, this is anathema to those who believe socialization and government has all the answers - but, history attests too well otherwise. Yet, false beliefs and selective evidence can be all-too-comforting.
So, the apparent "drug-of-choice" is belief that doing the same things again and again in terms of social justice (read: equalization of economic outcomes) will somehow also incentivize growth - eventually. It may belie logic - but, such thoughts can be so liberally comforting.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
FOCUS ON OPPORTUNITIES NOT OUTCOMES!: John H. Cochrane: The Fed's Mission Impossible - WSJ.com
John H. Cochrane: The Fed's Mission Impossible - WSJ.com
Let's try focusing on "opportunities" not deal with "outcomes".
The bane of all these policies is that we want to have safe outcomes and reduce risks. However growth, change and development is full of risks (again, anathema to liberals and Democrats).
If the economy could turn from subsidies, tax preferences, protective regulation, etc. and move to do everything it can to promote opportunities and reduced barriers to entry (there is nothing unions and big government likes more than barriers to entry to prevent competition), then the market could take care of itself.
Allow failure! Then investors know they have to watch out or they'll lose money.
As society is finding out over in Europe (and should be concerned about in the US), eventually the economic downside of these well-intended liberal policies of equalizing outcomes come up with a bill that is very difficult (if not impossible to pay).
No one really knows now how the Greeks will pay their bill. Obama and the Democrats think there will never be a serious attempt to collect on the entitlement spending bill they are running up! We'll see.
Let's try focusing on "opportunities" not deal with "outcomes".
The bane of all these policies is that we want to have safe outcomes and reduce risks. However growth, change and development is full of risks (again, anathema to liberals and Democrats).
If the economy could turn from subsidies, tax preferences, protective regulation, etc. and move to do everything it can to promote opportunities and reduced barriers to entry (there is nothing unions and big government likes more than barriers to entry to prevent competition), then the market could take care of itself.
Allow failure! Then investors know they have to watch out or they'll lose money.
As society is finding out over in Europe (and should be concerned about in the US), eventually the economic downside of these well-intended liberal policies of equalizing outcomes come up with a bill that is very difficult (if not impossible to pay).
No one really knows now how the Greeks will pay their bill. Obama and the Democrats think there will never be a serious attempt to collect on the entitlement spending bill they are running up! We'll see.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
WHITHER THE NEW YEAR?: Jenkins: The Fannie and Freddie Hate Storm - WSJ.com
Jenkins: The Fannie and Freddie Hate Storm - WSJ.com
One could perhaps sum things up with the old adage about the "free lunch". Those who think there is one just hope they don't get hit with the backside or downside.
Likewise, the liberal agenda to equalize "outcomes" vs "opportunities" is another bane.
When you want equal outcomes, you believe there's a free lunch.
As noted, people soon feel they are entitled and government responds. Soon government takes too much from the economy to have growth or even sustainability. Borrowing (like a family living on credit cards) works for a while; but, eventually, the lenders figure there's no way they are going to be paid back.
The question before us is how this will all be handled?
Raising taxes on the rich, business and investors is appealing until you reach the "Laffer" moment when returns are less and less (think Illinois with its corporate tax increases or Europe in general).
Since the Laffer moment has certainly been reached in many parts of Europe (add in burdensome regulations as in the US), the question is open as to the next series of events? Printing money is highly in favor in many parts (few have likely visited Zimbabwe to see the downsides or are old enough to remember the German hyperinflation; and, of course, most want to ignore the 1970's in the US - just too long ago).
As for guilt - perhaps all too many are guilty for hoping more liberal policies and higher taxes are a solution. But, the liberals are telling us the rich can pick up the tab - so, little is done on their part to reign in spending or to provide equal opportunity incentives for growth. Oh yes, and the Republicans don't want immigrants.
One could perhaps sum things up with the old adage about the "free lunch". Those who think there is one just hope they don't get hit with the backside or downside.
Likewise, the liberal agenda to equalize "outcomes" vs "opportunities" is another bane.
When you want equal outcomes, you believe there's a free lunch.
As noted, people soon feel they are entitled and government responds. Soon government takes too much from the economy to have growth or even sustainability. Borrowing (like a family living on credit cards) works for a while; but, eventually, the lenders figure there's no way they are going to be paid back.
The question before us is how this will all be handled?
Raising taxes on the rich, business and investors is appealing until you reach the "Laffer" moment when returns are less and less (think Illinois with its corporate tax increases or Europe in general).
Since the Laffer moment has certainly been reached in many parts of Europe (add in burdensome regulations as in the US), the question is open as to the next series of events? Printing money is highly in favor in many parts (few have likely visited Zimbabwe to see the downsides or are old enough to remember the German hyperinflation; and, of course, most want to ignore the 1970's in the US - just too long ago).
As for guilt - perhaps all too many are guilty for hoping more liberal policies and higher taxes are a solution. But, the liberals are telling us the rich can pick up the tab - so, little is done on their part to reign in spending or to provide equal opportunity incentives for growth. Oh yes, and the Republicans don't want immigrants.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Q&A on Real Culprits: Goldman's Conundrum For 2012 - WSJ.com
Goldman's Conundrum For 2012 - WSJ.com
Statement: "all of them need to confess and repent. We are trying to expose Moody's and want people to know what happened and how were those shoddy mortgages given AAA ratings."
Response:
Since you imply confession and repentance is being sought outside of unions, liberals and the government, I'd suggest the religiously-toned objectives are misdirected.
As the above-alleged culprits believe the vagaries of the business cycle and the outcomes of wisdom, sagacity and hard work can be equalized and need to be, they are all responsible for raising the needed returns and salaries of those who can perform with the liberal regulatory and tax lodestones thrust upon them.
As such, it appears you are letting them off scot-free!
Anyone who bought a home or apartment in the maelstrom of the real estate bubble or the mortgages supporting the bubble should have rejected the 'process' design of liberal and socialist thinking for the more capitalist view of profit and return. The blatant question at the time was roughly "how can prices keep going up faster than incomes when there are no limits to supply?"
Similar questions have to be asked today in many areas. Many (most) aren't asking them.
Thus, one can't but suggest the tone of your blog must also be misdirected.
Statement: "all of them need to confess and repent. We are trying to expose Moody's and want people to know what happened and how were those shoddy mortgages given AAA ratings."
Response:
Since you imply confession and repentance is being sought outside of unions, liberals and the government, I'd suggest the religiously-toned objectives are misdirected.
As the above-alleged culprits believe the vagaries of the business cycle and the outcomes of wisdom, sagacity and hard work can be equalized and need to be, they are all responsible for raising the needed returns and salaries of those who can perform with the liberal regulatory and tax lodestones thrust upon them.
As such, it appears you are letting them off scot-free!
Anyone who bought a home or apartment in the maelstrom of the real estate bubble or the mortgages supporting the bubble should have rejected the 'process' design of liberal and socialist thinking for the more capitalist view of profit and return. The blatant question at the time was roughly "how can prices keep going up faster than incomes when there are no limits to supply?"
Similar questions have to be asked today in many areas. Many (most) aren't asking them.
Thus, one can't but suggest the tone of your blog must also be misdirected.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
THE GROCERY STORE ANALOGY: A Lump of Coal - Barrons.com
A Lump of Coal - Barrons.com
It's amazing how the evidence of the baneful effects of more government keep growing - but, as the old saying goes - "there's none so blind as those that will not see".
Somehow people still cling to the ridiculous (in terms of government bureaucracy) idea that when they go into the grocery store, they have a right to buy what they want - based on their own personal assessment of their own individual 'economic-utility' functions.
Yet, when these same liberals and all-wrought-up religious types think of others, they think they know better than these others.
Young people's reported growing support for Ron Paul starts to suggest at least some people are thinking that maybe we should all have more control over our lives.
Thanks for the always worthwhile editorial. Let's hope for a freer new year.
It's amazing how the evidence of the baneful effects of more government keep growing - but, as the old saying goes - "there's none so blind as those that will not see".
Somehow people still cling to the ridiculous (in terms of government bureaucracy) idea that when they go into the grocery store, they have a right to buy what they want - based on their own personal assessment of their own individual 'economic-utility' functions.
Yet, when these same liberals and all-wrought-up religious types think of others, they think they know better than these others.
Young people's reported growing support for Ron Paul starts to suggest at least some people are thinking that maybe we should all have more control over our lives.
Thanks for the always worthwhile editorial. Let's hope for a freer new year.
LIBERAL AND MORAL BAGGAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE REASSESSED! CUT HEAVY AND CUT HARD! Interview With Van Hoisington - Barrons.com
Interview With Van Hoisington - Barrons.com
Having laid out the issues, one can't help but ponder that Obama and the Democrats don't have a clue that they need to make cuts in their handouts; nor do they have a clue that excellence needs to be rewarded and mediocrity and under-performance not given support that drains the economy.
Ron Paul's appeal, which is reportedly particularly high among young people, would seem to bear the concern of the young out - they want jobs and feel able to bear the responsibility of working and earning - as long as they get to keep a fair share of what they earn.
Those public unions and the UAW that thought their golden retirement plans at age 50 ought to be very concerned.
On the Republican side, their moral baggage from the religious right doesn't allow them to really deal fairly with immigration or the drug problem.
If this was a family budget, there are families who know how to cut and those that don't.
My experience is that the sooner you cut and the heavier the cutbacks the better. You can always add back!
Having laid out the issues, one can't help but ponder that Obama and the Democrats don't have a clue that they need to make cuts in their handouts; nor do they have a clue that excellence needs to be rewarded and mediocrity and under-performance not given support that drains the economy.
Ron Paul's appeal, which is reportedly particularly high among young people, would seem to bear the concern of the young out - they want jobs and feel able to bear the responsibility of working and earning - as long as they get to keep a fair share of what they earn.
Those public unions and the UAW that thought their golden retirement plans at age 50 ought to be very concerned.
On the Republican side, their moral baggage from the religious right doesn't allow them to really deal fairly with immigration or the drug problem.
If this was a family budget, there are families who know how to cut and those that don't.
My experience is that the sooner you cut and the heavier the cutbacks the better. You can always add back!
THE MALESTROM OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS: Why Has the Recovery Been So Slow? - Barrons.com
Why Has the Recovery Been So Slow? - Barrons.com
It's certainly obvious that the idea of leveling incomes and economic and educational outcomes (i.e. high social benefits and taxes and regulations) is widely discussed and contrary to saving, investment and growth.
(For example, see the recent article on Wisconsin where the previous industrial strength of the state has been supplanted by government and healthcare workers.)
By so constraining the opportunities for 'average' Americans - in order to provide for the less fortunate - it could well be argued that the result is to only allow the extremely talented and capable to escape the malestrom of social-consciousness.
It's certainly obvious that the idea of leveling incomes and economic and educational outcomes (i.e. high social benefits and taxes and regulations) is widely discussed and contrary to saving, investment and growth.
(For example, see the recent article on Wisconsin where the previous industrial strength of the state has been supplanted by government and healthcare workers.)
By so constraining the opportunities for 'average' Americans - in order to provide for the less fortunate - it could well be argued that the result is to only allow the extremely talented and capable to escape the malestrom of social-consciousness.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
PROCESS AND 'OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY': Crovitz: Financial Regulation—Worse Than a Crime - WSJ.com
Crovitz: Financial Regulation—Worse Than a Crime - WSJ.com
It's also part of the problem when, to capture a phrase - regulators don't have "any skin in the game". In other words, they are dealing with other people's money, not their own.
In addition, regulators, as the article points out, are dealing with motherhood-type causes. What do I mean by this? Mothers generally are the member of the family that looks out for the welfare of the children. They expect and anticipate that the resources for this care will be there.
Mothers are not like the fathers in this simplistic (and admittedly sexist example) the 'breadwinners'. Someone else is responsible for providing the income.
This is clearly the liberal and Democratic (and union belief) - i.e. there are demands to be met (think of them as you will) and someone else is to provide the funding.
As a result, it is current consumption that trumps everything the mother-instinct of these liberals might consider. In the old farmer analysis of saving the seed-corn for the next season's planting, the mother instinct says, "I need food now", let's worry about the next season or the economy another day.
This has been the exact situation where liberals and unions make policy. They see needs and they abdure looking at the cost and what the consequences will be.
The next big issue is that since liberals don't have any skin-in-the-game, they think 'process' can trump product. As such, regulations and process are supposed to produce the halcyon results liberals (mothers) envisage.
The fact that evidence negates this view is again dismissed. Why? Because someone has been given consumption they haven't earned. The benefit has been delivered; and, the cost is borne by someone else.
Today, politicians like Obama keep saying it's the rich that are keeping the benefits to the middle class down. As long as the middle class believes they can get something for nothing, it's like a religious belief - i.e. eventually the benefice will come, just keep believing.
Until there's a return to getting what you deserve and can pay for back to society (i.e. not an entitlement) is reduced and balanced out, then the prognosis has to be one of anticipating more economically bad news (be it depression, recession, inflation or rampant inflation)!
It's also part of the problem when, to capture a phrase - regulators don't have "any skin in the game". In other words, they are dealing with other people's money, not their own.
In addition, regulators, as the article points out, are dealing with motherhood-type causes. What do I mean by this? Mothers generally are the member of the family that looks out for the welfare of the children. They expect and anticipate that the resources for this care will be there.
Mothers are not like the fathers in this simplistic (and admittedly sexist example) the 'breadwinners'. Someone else is responsible for providing the income.
This is clearly the liberal and Democratic (and union belief) - i.e. there are demands to be met (think of them as you will) and someone else is to provide the funding.
As a result, it is current consumption that trumps everything the mother-instinct of these liberals might consider. In the old farmer analysis of saving the seed-corn for the next season's planting, the mother instinct says, "I need food now", let's worry about the next season or the economy another day.
This has been the exact situation where liberals and unions make policy. They see needs and they abdure looking at the cost and what the consequences will be.
The next big issue is that since liberals don't have any skin-in-the-game, they think 'process' can trump product. As such, regulations and process are supposed to produce the halcyon results liberals (mothers) envisage.
The fact that evidence negates this view is again dismissed. Why? Because someone has been given consumption they haven't earned. The benefit has been delivered; and, the cost is borne by someone else.
Today, politicians like Obama keep saying it's the rich that are keeping the benefits to the middle class down. As long as the middle class believes they can get something for nothing, it's like a religious belief - i.e. eventually the benefice will come, just keep believing.
Until there's a return to getting what you deserve and can pay for back to society (i.e. not an entitlement) is reduced and balanced out, then the prognosis has to be one of anticipating more economically bad news (be it depression, recession, inflation or rampant inflation)!
Monday, December 12, 2011
THE BUBBLE AND THE PHOENIX: OECD Points to Mixed Slowdowns - WSJ.com
OECD Points to Mixed Slowdowns - WSJ.com
If one was to draw a parallel with the US housing bubble and suggest that too much government spending and too many policies that are anti-business exist and that the ability of governments to continue spending by borrowing in ways that will never reflect the amount of income their economies can provide to fund all of the spending the government (and many of its citizens want), then the question is how big the bubble will be allowed to grow and what happens then.
No country is really providing a stimulus to business or investment. They seem to hope that higher taxes and certainly, in the case of the US, even further expansion of government regulations and interference in the economy, will somehow be at best benign and that the miracle of economic growth will suddenly appear from the socialist world like a phoenix. However, this seems most unlikely.
If one was to draw a parallel with the US housing bubble and suggest that too much government spending and too many policies that are anti-business exist and that the ability of governments to continue spending by borrowing in ways that will never reflect the amount of income their economies can provide to fund all of the spending the government (and many of its citizens want), then the question is how big the bubble will be allowed to grow and what happens then.
No country is really providing a stimulus to business or investment. They seem to hope that higher taxes and certainly, in the case of the US, even further expansion of government regulations and interference in the economy, will somehow be at best benign and that the miracle of economic growth will suddenly appear from the socialist world like a phoenix. However, this seems most unlikely.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
THE MISTAKES BEHIND ANOTHER MORTGAGE REFI GAME: Mortgage Refis Could Pump $80 Billion into the Economy - Barrons.com
Mortgage Refis Could Pump $80 Billion into the Economy - Barrons.com
Sadly, this seems more like misdirection in an attempt to overlook, ignore and turn away from the policy mistakes which make investing and having faith in the long-term viability of the American economy up for grabs.
We see in Europe how socialist cradle-to-grave welfare has crippled the economies. There is no growth and huge debts.
The same socialist model is at the heart of Obama and Democratic policies. These policies aren't changing! There is the dichotomy of those who believe 'demand-has-to-be-met' socially and those who believe you have to leave enough in the economy to support growth and reward for saving, investment and prudence.
This mortgage refi is again an attempt to award those who acted imprudently and its a blatant attempt to obscure the real policy issues that need challenging.
With Obama and others convinced and convincing the general public - as is also seen in Europe - that somehow money has to be there for all these union job protections, social benefit programs, etc - and, that higher taxes are an inconsequential inconvenience only (and heck, mostly against the rich and businesses), why should the public believe change is necessary to get back to a job-creating, robust economy?
Those living on the income from these mortgages (as with savers everywhere) are the people who ox will be gored to give one more liberal stimulus to equalize economic outcomes vs. opportunities.
Sadly, this seems more like misdirection in an attempt to overlook, ignore and turn away from the policy mistakes which make investing and having faith in the long-term viability of the American economy up for grabs.
We see in Europe how socialist cradle-to-grave welfare has crippled the economies. There is no growth and huge debts.
The same socialist model is at the heart of Obama and Democratic policies. These policies aren't changing! There is the dichotomy of those who believe 'demand-has-to-be-met' socially and those who believe you have to leave enough in the economy to support growth and reward for saving, investment and prudence.
This mortgage refi is again an attempt to award those who acted imprudently and its a blatant attempt to obscure the real policy issues that need challenging.
With Obama and others convinced and convincing the general public - as is also seen in Europe - that somehow money has to be there for all these union job protections, social benefit programs, etc - and, that higher taxes are an inconsequential inconvenience only (and heck, mostly against the rich and businesses), why should the public believe change is necessary to get back to a job-creating, robust economy?
Those living on the income from these mortgages (as with savers everywhere) are the people who ox will be gored to give one more liberal stimulus to equalize economic outcomes vs. opportunities.
Friday, December 9, 2011
THE DEITY OF SOCIALISM: Matthew Kaminski: A Silver Lining in Europe - WSJ.com
Matthew Kaminski: A Silver Lining in Europe - WSJ.com
The sad thing with socialism is that in many ways it mimics religion - i.e. it takes faith to hope that the desired outcome (of the socialist prayers) will come about.
When it doesn't, as with religions, where the faith produces belief but not the expected miracles, then the believer must be at fault and have transgressed. The underlying belief system can't be faulted nor can one fault the deity.
In socialism the deity is entitlement.
The sad thing with socialism is that in many ways it mimics religion - i.e. it takes faith to hope that the desired outcome (of the socialist prayers) will come about.
When it doesn't, as with religions, where the faith produces belief but not the expected miracles, then the believer must be at fault and have transgressed. The underlying belief system can't be faulted nor can one fault the deity.
In socialism the deity is entitlement.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
NOT FOR SOCIALISTICALLY POLITE DISCUSSION: The Punch and Judy Show - Barrons.com
The Punch and Judy Show - Barrons.com
Sadly, the PIIGs idea of living-within-your-means involves far more tax increases than government (or spending) cutbacks.
And, the average member of the public in these countries doesn't seem very enthused about any government spending cutbacks.
French friends report strong Socialist party support within the country and far more radically left policies than Sarkozy - who, it doesn't seem has had any particular success in delivering on his election promises of toning down the big government and its bureaucracies - both local, regional and national.
These countries all seem to remind one of the family that feels reasonable flush or sated as long as they still have borrowing capacity on their credit cards. When the rates go up or they are getting close to a credit limit, they may hue and cry.
But, do these countries really want to go back to work. It sure doesn't seem so. Somehow growth (like a job) is nice to talk about, but the idea of knuckling down to actually do the work a job (read: growth) would entail - well, that's not a subject for socialistically polite discussion.
Sadly, the PIIGs idea of living-within-your-means involves far more tax increases than government (or spending) cutbacks.
And, the average member of the public in these countries doesn't seem very enthused about any government spending cutbacks.
French friends report strong Socialist party support within the country and far more radically left policies than Sarkozy - who, it doesn't seem has had any particular success in delivering on his election promises of toning down the big government and its bureaucracies - both local, regional and national.
These countries all seem to remind one of the family that feels reasonable flush or sated as long as they still have borrowing capacity on their credit cards. When the rates go up or they are getting close to a credit limit, they may hue and cry.
But, do these countries really want to go back to work. It sure doesn't seem so. Somehow growth (like a job) is nice to talk about, but the idea of knuckling down to actually do the work a job (read: growth) would entail - well, that's not a subject for socialistically polite discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
