Europe's Leaders May Need History Lesson - WSJ.com
It would seem like the Delphic oracle that this article is so open to interpretation that it really says nothing?
A discussion of issues such as supporting 'growth' in an economy through growth-engendering support for investment and entrepreneurship (both sorely lacking in Europe) are amiss.
Any questioning of union-centric labor policies that inhibit hiring and economic vitality are amiss.
There's also nothing about the fact that taxes, which raise prices for goods and services, concomitantly decrease the demand for those goods and services (and the jobs required to produce them).
There is also no criticism of policies such as those reported in Bloomberg today about the closure of French petroleum refineries due to falling demand and lack of profit. Do the French unions call for cuts in fuel taxes to spur demand or in labor costs to return the refinery to profitability? No, the unions want nationalization to transfer money from the still-solvent part of the economy to their own no-longer-solvent part.
If Europe has a problem, as in America, its the ostrich approach to a non-socialist political and economic construct and way of doing things. As with the classical definition of imbecility, which deals with continuing to do the same things in the same ways but expecting a different outcome, the policymakers and public of much of Europe and the US are deluding themselves.
Monday, January 2, 2012
ON EDUCATION AND TEACHERS' UNIONS: Review & Outlook: Republicans for Monopoly - WSJ.com
Review & Outlook: Republicans for Monopoly - WSJ.com
Clearly in California, the teachers unions and the support of liberal educational objectives based more on equalizing educational outcomes than educational opportunities is a bane that the country already has documented with increasingly less-educated generations of young people.
Since the teachers unions have won higher salaries and benefits and have assured that it is almost impossible to fire poorly performing or even grossly incompetent teachers at the same time educational outcomes are declining, there appears to be all-too-clear a correlation.
For those in favor of unions and government monopolies, "more-of-the-same" doesn't appear to be working to show any improvement.
Clearly in California, the teachers unions and the support of liberal educational objectives based more on equalizing educational outcomes than educational opportunities is a bane that the country already has documented with increasingly less-educated generations of young people.
Since the teachers unions have won higher salaries and benefits and have assured that it is almost impossible to fire poorly performing or even grossly incompetent teachers at the same time educational outcomes are declining, there appears to be all-too-clear a correlation.
For those in favor of unions and government monopolies, "more-of-the-same" doesn't appear to be working to show any improvement.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
THE LIBERAL DRUG-OF-CHOICE: Backlog of Social Security Disability Cases Leaves the Terminally Ill Waiting - WSJ.com
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
