Henninger: Taking Cain Seriously - WSJ.com
I keep thinking - re: health insurance - that it would be nice if people had a few choices. Among them could be: (1) The Leftist Everything We Think You Need Plan (i.e. cost e.g. $1000); (2) You Get to Pick and Choose Your Insured Events Plan (i.e. cost e.g. $300 - $1,000); and, (3) The Healthy Choice Plan (with no subsidies for other plans) (i.e. cost $100).
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
UAW eating seed-corn: Twisting the Night Away - Barrons.com
Twisting the Night Away - Barrons.com
The litany of the horrid mindset in Washington goes on.
The other telling and scary allision of the week is to look at the UAW's settlement with GM (cash bonuses, salary increases) at the same time that the Democrats are more interested in having taxpayers subsidize the research into new car technologies that the US auto companies should be doing with their money.
So, instead of disaster relief funding, the Dems are glad to have taxpayers keep overpaying UAW auto workers. So, all taxpayers should subsidize those who are members of unions and who would rather eat the seed-corn of their company's futures rather than forgo immediate gratification.
Since the UAW economic model seems to be that of the current administration, is it any wonder the economy is in the doldrums?
The litany of the horrid mindset in Washington goes on.
The other telling and scary allision of the week is to look at the UAW's settlement with GM (cash bonuses, salary increases) at the same time that the Democrats are more interested in having taxpayers subsidize the research into new car technologies that the US auto companies should be doing with their money.
So, instead of disaster relief funding, the Dems are glad to have taxpayers keep overpaying UAW auto workers. So, all taxpayers should subsidize those who are members of unions and who would rather eat the seed-corn of their company's futures rather than forgo immediate gratification.
Since the UAW economic model seems to be that of the current administration, is it any wonder the economy is in the doldrums?
OBAMA'S UAW MODEL FOR THE ECONOMY: Obama's Jobs Act: Too Little, Too Late - Barrons.com
Obama's Jobs Act: Too Little, Too Late - Barrons.com
All of the above would seem to be vastly too kind and ignorant of the long-term and current maliciousness of Obama's policies to economic growth.
As his view of the economy is basically a UAW-type mindset, it all depends on whether one thinks running a policy from the perspective of a UAW union official or from the perspective of an investor or entrepreneur will create economic growth?
Frankly, the UAW doesn't have much of a record - having wiped out the previous set of investors (i.e. private) and looking like it would rather take current bonuses and increased wages with the taxpayer not getting back their investment (i.e. public) and the industry and unions (US car makers and the UAW) wanting the public to bankrupt their investment into technologies to keep them in business.
What a scary model for the running of the US economy!
All of the above would seem to be vastly too kind and ignorant of the long-term and current maliciousness of Obama's policies to economic growth.
As his view of the economy is basically a UAW-type mindset, it all depends on whether one thinks running a policy from the perspective of a UAW union official or from the perspective of an investor or entrepreneur will create economic growth?
Frankly, the UAW doesn't have much of a record - having wiped out the previous set of investors (i.e. private) and looking like it would rather take current bonuses and increased wages with the taxpayer not getting back their investment (i.e. public) and the industry and unions (US car makers and the UAW) wanting the public to bankrupt their investment into technologies to keep them in business.
What a scary model for the running of the US economy!
Friday, September 23, 2011
On Democratic Tax Cuts: Economic Signals Heighten Worries of a Double-Dip - WSJ.com
Economic Signals Heighten Worries of a Double-Dip - WSJ.com
As for Democratic tax cuts, it might be noted that the populist nature of these cuts ignores what most business economists would call common sense - i.e. they are short term and balanced with proposed higher taxes on entrepreneurs and investors.
Bottom line, investors want the money in their pocket - not their employees or those on the Federal dole.
As for Democratic tax cuts, it might be noted that the populist nature of these cuts ignores what most business economists would call common sense - i.e. they are short term and balanced with proposed higher taxes on entrepreneurs and investors.
Bottom line, investors want the money in their pocket - not their employees or those on the Federal dole.
ONE OF THE THINGS WRONG WITH THE DEMOCRAT'S APPROACH TO INVESTMENT IN THE ECONOMY: Economic Signals Heighten Worries of a Double-Dip - WSJ.com
Economic Signals Heighten Worries of a Double-Dip - WSJ.com
Another sign of what's wrong with Democratic economic policies (unless you favor the right of unions to be subsidized by everyone else in the economy) is the Democrats desire to fund research into next generation automotive technologies to "keep car production in this country".
Let's just admit that its UAW car production and that the union would rather have bonuses, higher wages and benefits with their new contract than to make sure there employers have the funds to invest in the future of their industry.
Clearly Obama and the unions see nothing wrong with this. Why should they forego current rewards and sacrifice for the future.
Clearly again this is emblematic of the antipodal beliefs unions and the Democrats have with respect to restoring economic growth. They want the benefits of growth but don't want to pay for it. Take it from someone else!
Another sign of what's wrong with Democratic economic policies (unless you favor the right of unions to be subsidized by everyone else in the economy) is the Democrats desire to fund research into next generation automotive technologies to "keep car production in this country".
Let's just admit that its UAW car production and that the union would rather have bonuses, higher wages and benefits with their new contract than to make sure there employers have the funds to invest in the future of their industry.
Clearly Obama and the unions see nothing wrong with this. Why should they forego current rewards and sacrifice for the future.
Clearly again this is emblematic of the antipodal beliefs unions and the Democrats have with respect to restoring economic growth. They want the benefits of growth but don't want to pay for it. Take it from someone else!
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
OBAMA'S UAW AND ZIMBABWE ECONOMY STRATEGY: Don't Shout for Operation Twist - Barrons.com
Don't Shout for Operation Twist - Barrons.com
It is evident on Bloomberg now for weeks that there is the feeling that 'inflation' as noted above can be benign. But like all things that history says are too good to be true, while housing may be bailed out, everyone has to be ignoring the history of the 1970's and 1980's.
We know there has been a government bond and interest rate bubble building, but, with every utterance, the Keynesians shown their utter lack of understanding of realistic economic principles.
They think they can encourage a revival of the economy by flooding entitlement money. But, they do everything in their power to make producers realize the government is out to get them. They just don't see it!
A visit to Europe shows what union-centric, socialist policies do. But, closer to home, there is the UAW. As Obama would like to make the US economy into the image of what the UAW would like to see - high union wages, a closed union shop, etc. - he fails to realize that the UAW brought down General Motors and forced it into bankruptcy.
Private sector taxpayers under the tax gun of government and the borrowing capacity of these taxpayers and the printing press of the Federal Reserve bailed out the UAW.
If the Fed is left to have to bail out the entire country - just think Zimbabwe.
It is evident on Bloomberg now for weeks that there is the feeling that 'inflation' as noted above can be benign. But like all things that history says are too good to be true, while housing may be bailed out, everyone has to be ignoring the history of the 1970's and 1980's.
We know there has been a government bond and interest rate bubble building, but, with every utterance, the Keynesians shown their utter lack of understanding of realistic economic principles.
They think they can encourage a revival of the economy by flooding entitlement money. But, they do everything in their power to make producers realize the government is out to get them. They just don't see it!
A visit to Europe shows what union-centric, socialist policies do. But, closer to home, there is the UAW. As Obama would like to make the US economy into the image of what the UAW would like to see - high union wages, a closed union shop, etc. - he fails to realize that the UAW brought down General Motors and forced it into bankruptcy.
Private sector taxpayers under the tax gun of government and the borrowing capacity of these taxpayers and the printing press of the Federal Reserve bailed out the UAW.
If the Fed is left to have to bail out the entire country - just think Zimbabwe.
THE UNPOPULAR DILEMMA: The Fed's Operation Twist Plan Unnerves Investors - Barrons.com
The Fed's Operation Twist Plan Unnerves Investors - Barrons.com
What's really scary is that Obama keeps putting his economic foot in his mouth with almost every utterance; yet, these utterances sound logical to the economically ill-informed.
Thus, there won't be any economic rebound and the stagflation of the 1970s is likely to look halcyon to what Obama and his Keynesians are cooking up.
It may be that some actual pro-growth, anti-union, anti-government policies will emerge to slow and/or try to turn around the slide into the increasingly greater mismatch between what government takes in (and/or can take in) and what it spends.
But, there's no evidence to date of this happening. Both in Europe and the US, those who want aren't those producing enough to provide what they want - so, they have to take, print or borrow.
What's really scary is that Obama keeps putting his economic foot in his mouth with almost every utterance; yet, these utterances sound logical to the economically ill-informed.
Thus, there won't be any economic rebound and the stagflation of the 1970s is likely to look halcyon to what Obama and his Keynesians are cooking up.
It may be that some actual pro-growth, anti-union, anti-government policies will emerge to slow and/or try to turn around the slide into the increasingly greater mismatch between what government takes in (and/or can take in) and what it spends.
But, there's no evidence to date of this happening. Both in Europe and the US, those who want aren't those producing enough to provide what they want - so, they have to take, print or borrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
