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!
Saturday, December 17, 2011
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)
