By Tom Rhodes, 3/16/2018
Government is a necessary evil. All the Utopian thinking will never make anarchy in any form a viable way to protect the freedom and liberty of society as a whole. Taxes to fund government are also necessary. There is no argument, tariffs are a form of taxes. When talking about taxes, we are discussing the funding government. Contemplating all revenue sources, tariffs should be rationally considered. If you want to fund government with just voluntary contributions you might as well believe leprechauns mix pixie dust with unicorn farts to turn into gold that you can find in pots at the end of a rainbow.
Governments exist for a lot of good reasons, including common defense. Governments have historically done a better job of defending borders than any other form of organization, and are certainly a damned sight better at it than international corporations. Those international corporations are government-created entities. In essence tariffs are a form of border defense. They can and do protect a nation from influence and actions of other nations in more ways than one.
Government is funded by taxes. Taxes can come from usage fees, sin taxes, tariffs, licensing fees, or direct taxation of individuals and/or corporations. Those direct taxes can come from income, or consumption tax, or taxing accumulated wealth. All taxes “manage the economy, ” tariffs are no more so than any other form of taxes.
Fundamental libertarian philosophy is that the less involved government is in an individual’s life the more liberty and freedom that individual has. Comparing different tax types, tariffs are considerably less intrusive, and cause less economic disruption, than any of the direct taxation alternatives; income taxes, consumption taxes, and wealth taxes. Publisher and author, Theodore Beale asks, “If you believe that government is a terrible way to get things done, why would you rather have it interfere on a holistic and daily basis with the economic activity of every single domestic citizen rather than on a far less frequent basis with the cross-border shipments of a limited number of foreign corporations?”
The large sway in US national politics from statist and government nanny Obama, to close down the EPA, Trump, is evidence that government is far more controllable by the people than international corporations like Google or Apple. Even knowing that the government is somewhat corrupt and clearly non efficient, having Government convey legal advantage to manufacturing companies that employ large numbers of people in a tariff system is far better than conveying advantage to Wall Street financial companies that do not in a free trade system.
The idea that all taxes are evil and society can exist without taxes and/or government is juvenile and absurd and is no more realistic than socialism with total control of the economy by some few ruling elite and just as dangerous. Government, and therefore taxes, are a necessary evil. Tariffs put more of the taxes on big companies that did the importing than direct taxation. Those big companies own the media, and buy off politicians. They have convinced so called “conservatives” and worse yet libertarians, that free-trade between nations is better, because it forces the individuals not big corporations to pay most of the taxes.
What’s better for a hundreds fat cats and international corporations on Wall Street is free-trade, that’s worse for millions of average workers in industries that were moved overseas to fatten the wallets of those same fat cats and international corporations. As a country we survived and thrived using tariffs not direct taxation on individual income until 1913. Tariffs as a system of taxation to fund that government is far less intrusive on individuals, than any direct taxation system. From a libertarian point of view, that alone makes it superior.
Before you start yelling “FREE TRADE” answer the question posed near the beginning of this article, “If you believe that government is a terrible way to get things done, why would you rather have it interfere on a holistic and daily basis with the economic activity of every single domestic citizen rather than on a far less frequent basis with the cross-border shipments of a limited number of foreign corporations?”
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Friday, March 16, 2018
Friday, July 21, 2017
Marco Rubio Sponsors Bill to Fine You $1Million if You Trade with Israel
By Tom Rhodes, 7/21/2017
No that’s not hyperbole, if the bill he’s sponsoring becomes law, you choose to boycott certain companies, you can be fined up to a Million bucks. It will be a crime not to do business with Israel. This may be the most insane law ever proposed. What’s sick is that the bill is supported equally by both the Republocrats and Demicans.
As reported in The Intercept, congress is proposing the criminalization of political speech and activism if it involves boycotting one of their biggest contributors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC). I have nothing against Israel, but more importantly, I will defend your right to do business with whomever you please, and not to do business with whomever you please for whatever reason you choose. It’s called liberty.
Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), may quite possibly be the most insane federal law ever proposed. The sick thing is has bipartisan support from both statist parties. A group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Along with ultra-leftist senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand as sponsors is none other than Florida’s own Marco Rubio.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year. It is now beyond question that our government wants to outlaw opinions and ideas and legal actions that aren’t approved by the state. The corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make badthink go away. Be it a boycott of Israel, or speaking out against socialism on campus, or publically noting the facts that homosexuality is unsafe and unhealthy. These kind of laws are not only unconstitutional, but will intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.
No that’s not hyperbole, if the bill he’s sponsoring becomes law, you choose to boycott certain companies, you can be fined up to a Million bucks. It will be a crime not to do business with Israel. This may be the most insane law ever proposed. What’s sick is that the bill is supported equally by both the Republocrats and Demicans.
As reported in The Intercept, congress is proposing the criminalization of political speech and activism if it involves boycotting one of their biggest contributors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC). I have nothing against Israel, but more importantly, I will defend your right to do business with whomever you please, and not to do business with whomever you please for whatever reason you choose. It’s called liberty.
Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), may quite possibly be the most insane federal law ever proposed. The sick thing is has bipartisan support from both statist parties. A group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Along with ultra-leftist senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand as sponsors is none other than Florida’s own Marco Rubio.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year. It is now beyond question that our government wants to outlaw opinions and ideas and legal actions that aren’t approved by the state. The corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make badthink go away. Be it a boycott of Israel, or speaking out against socialism on campus, or publically noting the facts that homosexuality is unsafe and unhealthy. These kind of laws are not only unconstitutional, but will intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.
Meanwhile, some co-sponsors seemed not to have any idea what they co-sponsored — almost as though they reflexively sign whatever comes from AIPAC without having any idea what’s in it. Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, for instance, seemed genuinely bewildered when told of the ACLU’s letter, saying, “What’s the Act? You’ll have to get back to me on that.”
Friday, April 24, 2015
Inequality??
By Tom Rhodes, 4/24/2015
When you were in school, if you got an A for a class did that mean somebody else was only allowed to get an F? Is the fact you were given a D in Algebra predicated on the fact that others were given higher grades and there were only so many A’s, B’s and C’s available for the teacher to give, so you were stuck with what was left?
Imagine you’re in a class of 20 students, and the teacher is given a pile of 20 grades to give out, she has 1 A’s, 3 B’s, 12 C’s, 3 D’s, and 1 F. Because that is the total of the grades she has, the entire pie so to speak, she can only give out those grades. How do you think that would affect the work habits of those students who knew they weren’t as smart as some of the others. Let’s say the worked hard and studied and mastered the material and did all the work so had an average of 85% on all the assignments and tests. But there were 6 really smart kids in the class who didn’t have to work at all and they all averaged over 95%. Yes you could kick those kids ass on the football field, but in Algebra not so much. Is it fair you couldn’t get a B and only one of those smart kids could get an A because there were only so many good grades to go around?
If that were the case, then obviously doing your best is not worth the effort you can do minimal and probably get the same C, no amount of effort you put in would get you a B, much less an A. The few class clowns who don’t care and don’t do anything will get the D’s and F, so why should you do your best? If you believe that’s how grades work, only a few with unfair advantage of very high IQ get the good grades, and the rest are stuck with what’s left. The teacher has no control over how many of what grade they can give because the pie is cut and there are only so many pieces to give out, and only one of them is an A.
Would you consider that a “fair” system. Of course not. Is that the way grades are awarded? Of course not. Grades are not given on a strict bell curve. Grades are not given at all. Standards are set and those who reach those standards through hard work or natural ability earn the appropriate grade. That is fair. In the above example that student who worked hard and averaged 85% would get a B, regardless of what any other student did. Those 6 smart kids who got 95% would all get an A, their earning an A doesn’t affect any of the grades of the other students. In fact it is not uncommon for in a class of Algebra students that nobody gets a D or F. Nobody has to be given a bad grade because there are not enough high grades to go around. Grades are earned, not given.
The same applies to money. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is a gazillionaire, he didn’t get that way by taking away from what any other person could earn, he created that wealth by earning it. Nobody is poor because Zuckerman took too much of the income pie. He simply baked his own pie. If wealth is a fixed size pie, and Zuckerberg in less than a decade became worth $34 billion dollars, that would mean he took $34,000,000,000 from other people, Sorry but he didn’t, in fact most people use his product, Facebook, for free. Nobody’s pay got cut or lost their job so that Zuckerberg could get more money. Just like grades, him getting an A+ in social media didn’t come at the expense of somebody else losing anything.
The whole “income inequality” mantra, is based on a lie. Income is just like grades, you get what you earn. You can earn more if you put in more work and have more natural ability than others. As long as people are different, have different goals, different abilities, different skills, there will be different incomes. Not all work is valued the same. The fact is the 80 IQ guy doesn’t have the ability or skills the 140 IQ guy has, and probably doesn’t earn as much. But the High IQ engineer doesn’t take anything from the low IQ landscaper, he’s paid more because he has more responsibility and fewer people can do engineering. If the low IQ landscaper makes a mistake, grass dies or a yard looks ugly, if the high IQ engineer makes a mistake in designing a bridge, people die.
Just because a skill or ability is difficult and rare doesn’t make it valuable. Not many people can swallow a sword while riding a unicycle juggling bowling pins, wearing a pink too-too with a Chihuahua dancing on their forehead. It’s a cool skill, I’ve seen a street entertainer do that, I doubt there are very many others who can do that. As an entertainer I’m sure Samuel Jackson earns more just standing, looking cool, and growling. Why such income inequality. Because you are willing to voluntarily give up more of their money for one than the other. Nobody is forcing you to pay more for a movie ticket to Jackson wear an eye patch on the big screen, then you are willing to throw into the street entertainers hat. One is more valuable to you than the other. That voluntary, not forced, difference is the cause of income inequality, not the people earning more taking an unfair part of the pie. Income inequality is no more unfair than some kids getting A’s and some getting C’s in algebra class. Income inequality is nothing more than a reflection of the differences that exist in individual’s ability, skill, drive, goals, and life choices.
When you were in school, if you got an A for a class did that mean somebody else was only allowed to get an F? Is the fact you were given a D in Algebra predicated on the fact that others were given higher grades and there were only so many A’s, B’s and C’s available for the teacher to give, so you were stuck with what was left?
Imagine you’re in a class of 20 students, and the teacher is given a pile of 20 grades to give out, she has 1 A’s, 3 B’s, 12 C’s, 3 D’s, and 1 F. Because that is the total of the grades she has, the entire pie so to speak, she can only give out those grades. How do you think that would affect the work habits of those students who knew they weren’t as smart as some of the others. Let’s say the worked hard and studied and mastered the material and did all the work so had an average of 85% on all the assignments and tests. But there were 6 really smart kids in the class who didn’t have to work at all and they all averaged over 95%. Yes you could kick those kids ass on the football field, but in Algebra not so much. Is it fair you couldn’t get a B and only one of those smart kids could get an A because there were only so many good grades to go around?
If that were the case, then obviously doing your best is not worth the effort you can do minimal and probably get the same C, no amount of effort you put in would get you a B, much less an A. The few class clowns who don’t care and don’t do anything will get the D’s and F, so why should you do your best? If you believe that’s how grades work, only a few with unfair advantage of very high IQ get the good grades, and the rest are stuck with what’s left. The teacher has no control over how many of what grade they can give because the pie is cut and there are only so many pieces to give out, and only one of them is an A.
Would you consider that a “fair” system. Of course not. Is that the way grades are awarded? Of course not. Grades are not given on a strict bell curve. Grades are not given at all. Standards are set and those who reach those standards through hard work or natural ability earn the appropriate grade. That is fair. In the above example that student who worked hard and averaged 85% would get a B, regardless of what any other student did. Those 6 smart kids who got 95% would all get an A, their earning an A doesn’t affect any of the grades of the other students. In fact it is not uncommon for in a class of Algebra students that nobody gets a D or F. Nobody has to be given a bad grade because there are not enough high grades to go around. Grades are earned, not given.
The same applies to money. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is a gazillionaire, he didn’t get that way by taking away from what any other person could earn, he created that wealth by earning it. Nobody is poor because Zuckerman took too much of the income pie. He simply baked his own pie. If wealth is a fixed size pie, and Zuckerberg in less than a decade became worth $34 billion dollars, that would mean he took $34,000,000,000 from other people, Sorry but he didn’t, in fact most people use his product, Facebook, for free. Nobody’s pay got cut or lost their job so that Zuckerberg could get more money. Just like grades, him getting an A+ in social media didn’t come at the expense of somebody else losing anything.
The whole “income inequality” mantra, is based on a lie. Income is just like grades, you get what you earn. You can earn more if you put in more work and have more natural ability than others. As long as people are different, have different goals, different abilities, different skills, there will be different incomes. Not all work is valued the same. The fact is the 80 IQ guy doesn’t have the ability or skills the 140 IQ guy has, and probably doesn’t earn as much. But the High IQ engineer doesn’t take anything from the low IQ landscaper, he’s paid more because he has more responsibility and fewer people can do engineering. If the low IQ landscaper makes a mistake, grass dies or a yard looks ugly, if the high IQ engineer makes a mistake in designing a bridge, people die.
Just because a skill or ability is difficult and rare doesn’t make it valuable. Not many people can swallow a sword while riding a unicycle juggling bowling pins, wearing a pink too-too with a Chihuahua dancing on their forehead. It’s a cool skill, I’ve seen a street entertainer do that, I doubt there are very many others who can do that. As an entertainer I’m sure Samuel Jackson earns more just standing, looking cool, and growling. Why such income inequality. Because you are willing to voluntarily give up more of their money for one than the other. Nobody is forcing you to pay more for a movie ticket to Jackson wear an eye patch on the big screen, then you are willing to throw into the street entertainers hat. One is more valuable to you than the other. That voluntary, not forced, difference is the cause of income inequality, not the people earning more taking an unfair part of the pie. Income inequality is no more unfair than some kids getting A’s and some getting C’s in algebra class. Income inequality is nothing more than a reflection of the differences that exist in individual’s ability, skill, drive, goals, and life choices.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Physical Education – the Basis for Lying About American Education
by Tom Rhodes, 2/4/2015
What does it take to get an A grade in high school physical education? You know the answer, show up, dress out, participate. That’s it. The 100 pound nerd or 250 pound couch potato who can’t catch a ball, shoot a free-throw, bench press 200 pounds, tackle, block, run a mile, or do 10 pull up s gets the same A that the Jock who can do 100 pull ups and earns a football scholarship for showing up. The question is why?
Apply that to Algebra II. Why doesn’t the kid who shows up, does the work, and participates in class, but can’t solve a simple quadratic equation, can’t factor a polynomial, can’t figure out the length of the two sides of a right triangle given the length of the hypotenuse and the cosign of one angle, not get an A?
Why do we accept the fact that the 100 pound nerd can try as hard as he wants, will never be able to bench press 200 pounds, but ignore the fact that the 90 IQ jock will never be able to do higher math? Imagine how the 100 pound asthmatic nerd would feel if he was told to get an A in phys-ed he had to do 50 pushups in 2 min, 100 sit-ups in 2 min, 20 pull ups, and run a mile yards in less than 8 min.
I’m a smart man, that’s not bragging any more than Rob Gronkowski saying he’s an excellent athlete. Just statements of fact, like saying somebody is tall or short, measurable facts. I used to believe that if anybody applied themselves they could do anything. If I decided I wanted to learn C++ or Python, I could do it, it would take time and work but the outcome would be assured, I would learn those languages. It wasn’t until about the midway point of my first semester teaching high school chemistry, that I learned I was wrong. The fact is there are a significant number of people that no matter how hard they apply themselves and how hard they work, won’t ever be able to do chemistry, or calculus, or factor a polynomial, they don’t have the mental capacity. Just like no matter how hard I work and apply myself I’ll never be able to kick a 50 yd field goal, or win a marathon. I’m different than the athletes that can do those things. My desire, my effort, my attitude, nothing would matter, I don’t have the physical capability and never will. Never in in my physical prime regardless of effort and training would I be able to run a 100 meters in 13 seconds it can’t happen, much less 10 seconds times required to be a successful sprinter.
In fact the reality is that less than a 1000 people in the whole world are physically capable of running a 10 second 100 meter sprint. That is an accepted fact. We accept the fact that in any given high school only a small percentage of students could qualify for any varsity sport. Saying all kids should be on the varsity team is idiotic. The 100 pound asthmatic nerd does not belong on the football team, not only isn’t he qualified, he is physically unable to do so. Oh he could dress out and participate, but never ever perform even at the average level, much less be competitive. Why then should he get an A in Phys-Ed? If being able to factor quadric equations is a requirement to get an A in Algebra II, and predicting the results of chemical reactions and balancing chemical equations is a requirement to get an A in chemistry, why isn’t running a 100 meters in less than 12 seconds a requirement to get an A in Phys-Ed? If demonstrating performance in academics is the how people are judged in academic classes, why not demonstrating performance in athletics how people are judged in Phys-Ed?
The point is somebody asked that question, and rather than give the 100 pound asthmatic nerd a D in phys-ed because he has below average physical capability, we lowered the standards so that showing up, dressing out, and participating was good enough to get an A (excellent) grade. Grades used to mean something F = failed, D = performed below average, C performed at average level, B = performed above average, A = excellent performance. Any class academic or physical or artistic that doesn’t have the vast majority of students receiving a C grade, meaning they are average, is problematic. Assume a middle sized high school with 2000 students, all of them have to take physical science in their first year That would be about 600 students. A normal distribution curve would mean that of those 600 freshman, if the class was fair and accurate there would be about 50 As, 125 Bs, 250 Cs, 125 D’s, and 50 kids would fail. Unless you skewed the test and lowered the standards so that low IQ kids could pass.
As a chemistry teacher that is exactly what I did, because my pay depended on student performance, regardless of student effort. If you showed up, did the work, and participated, and got at least 50% on every test, you got a C in my chemistry class. The tests were also skewed so that minimal effort could produce at least 50, but harder question did separate some of the excellent students. To fail you had to purposefully try. Part of why I did this is that there were a lot of kids who worked hard, did the work, and tried, but just mentally chemistry was beyond them, and failing a good hard working kid because he’s dumb is not acceptable in public school, any more than failing a kid in phys-ed because he’s physically far below average. Out of about 100 kids there were 20 As, 35 Bs, 40 Cs, 5 Ds and 2 Fs; I was chastised because I didn’t give out enough As, and didn’t understand that I was hurting the spirit of the students by not giving better grades based on effort not performance. Documenting that my grades accurately reflected their standardized test scores was meaningless. How students feel about themselves is more important than their actual performance. Three years of that was all I could take, I quit for a job that paid twice as much and had half the hassles. Having dozens of students contact me and thank me for preparing them for college and holding them to a realistic standard was a great reward.
For some reason culturally recognizing what everybody can see and knows isn’t acceptable. The 100 pound 5’4” asthmatic nerd is not physically above average, he’s not going to be dating the “hot” girls, he’s not going to be on the varsity squad, but you can’t give him a poor grade in phys-ed because he might make him feel bad, so the standards have been set so low he’ll get an A in phys-ed regardless of actual performance.
Physical Education standards and the thinking that lead to them crept into academic standards and thinking. The idea that everybody should be prepared to go to college, and actually go is absurd. Any student who doesn’t have at least an above average IQ and doesn’t score better than the 50th percentile on the ACT or SAT should not go to college, they don’t have the mental chops to perform at that level. Unless of course the colleges lower their standards so that people with below average IQ can pass. Sending dumb people to college is a waste of their time and money, and a waste of societies resources. The stats that say college graduates earn more money are not wrong. It’s not the college degree that earns more money, it’s the fact that more smarter people graduate college than dumb ones, and smart people earn more money than dumb people. Sorry but the 90 IQ waitress, who does an excellent job, but cannot and will not ever be able to factor simple quadratic equations shouldn’t be pushed into getting a meaningless degree.
The average high school GPA is 3.0, that means that a B is not above average but average, and on a 4.0 scale we have no meaningful measurements for excellence, the data is skewed. That’s why advanced academic students routinely have a 4.5 GPA on a 4.0 scale. The fact is intelligence and grades in high school reflect what you’ll earn in the future better than college degrees.
Note that a student with a B average in high school will earn about the average wage, and the dumber the student the lower their average wage. Now even if you’re dumb, if your 6’4” tall, can run a 10 second 100 meter dash, jump 6 feet in the air, and catch a ball thrown from 60 yards away, you can make a lot of money because you can physically perform better than just about anybody else in the world. Being sub-par academically doesn’t’ mean you can’t excel someplace else. Of course the best world class athletes are not only superior physically but superior mentally.
Education should help every student maximize their potential. It should not ignore the fact that not everybody has the same capabilities. Our education system should not ignore or try to cover up the fact that half the people have below average intelligence, and that there are relatively few people with the mental capacity to do actual higher learning. Applying physical education grading schemes to academic grades only means we are lying to kids when we say that their 3.0 GPA means they are above average. They are not; they are just average. If your kid doesn’t have at least a 3.5 GPA, you should do some rational thinking before you waste $50K or allow your kid to borrow $50K to get a degree that in reality won’t get them a better job.
Lying to our kids is wrong, telling them they are “special” and they can do “anything they want” is a lie. If your kid has an IQ less than 120, don’t encourage her to become an chemist or engineer or doctor, you’re setting her up for failure. With rare exception, the average IQ person does not have the mental capability to be a chemist or engineer or doctor. That’s a hard fact just like it’s a hard fact that the average 100 pound nerd is never going to play professional sports. We need to quit lying to ourselves and our children. Not everybody is above average.
What does it take to get an A grade in high school physical education? You know the answer, show up, dress out, participate. That’s it. The 100 pound nerd or 250 pound couch potato who can’t catch a ball, shoot a free-throw, bench press 200 pounds, tackle, block, run a mile, or do 10 pull up s gets the same A that the Jock who can do 100 pull ups and earns a football scholarship for showing up. The question is why?
Apply that to Algebra II. Why doesn’t the kid who shows up, does the work, and participates in class, but can’t solve a simple quadratic equation, can’t factor a polynomial, can’t figure out the length of the two sides of a right triangle given the length of the hypotenuse and the cosign of one angle, not get an A?
Why do we accept the fact that the 100 pound nerd can try as hard as he wants, will never be able to bench press 200 pounds, but ignore the fact that the 90 IQ jock will never be able to do higher math? Imagine how the 100 pound asthmatic nerd would feel if he was told to get an A in phys-ed he had to do 50 pushups in 2 min, 100 sit-ups in 2 min, 20 pull ups, and run a mile yards in less than 8 min.
I’m a smart man, that’s not bragging any more than Rob Gronkowski saying he’s an excellent athlete. Just statements of fact, like saying somebody is tall or short, measurable facts. I used to believe that if anybody applied themselves they could do anything. If I decided I wanted to learn C++ or Python, I could do it, it would take time and work but the outcome would be assured, I would learn those languages. It wasn’t until about the midway point of my first semester teaching high school chemistry, that I learned I was wrong. The fact is there are a significant number of people that no matter how hard they apply themselves and how hard they work, won’t ever be able to do chemistry, or calculus, or factor a polynomial, they don’t have the mental capacity. Just like no matter how hard I work and apply myself I’ll never be able to kick a 50 yd field goal, or win a marathon. I’m different than the athletes that can do those things. My desire, my effort, my attitude, nothing would matter, I don’t have the physical capability and never will. Never in in my physical prime regardless of effort and training would I be able to run a 100 meters in 13 seconds it can’t happen, much less 10 seconds times required to be a successful sprinter.
In fact the reality is that less than a 1000 people in the whole world are physically capable of running a 10 second 100 meter sprint. That is an accepted fact. We accept the fact that in any given high school only a small percentage of students could qualify for any varsity sport. Saying all kids should be on the varsity team is idiotic. The 100 pound asthmatic nerd does not belong on the football team, not only isn’t he qualified, he is physically unable to do so. Oh he could dress out and participate, but never ever perform even at the average level, much less be competitive. Why then should he get an A in Phys-Ed? If being able to factor quadric equations is a requirement to get an A in Algebra II, and predicting the results of chemical reactions and balancing chemical equations is a requirement to get an A in chemistry, why isn’t running a 100 meters in less than 12 seconds a requirement to get an A in Phys-Ed? If demonstrating performance in academics is the how people are judged in academic classes, why not demonstrating performance in athletics how people are judged in Phys-Ed?
The point is somebody asked that question, and rather than give the 100 pound asthmatic nerd a D in phys-ed because he has below average physical capability, we lowered the standards so that showing up, dressing out, and participating was good enough to get an A (excellent) grade. Grades used to mean something F = failed, D = performed below average, C performed at average level, B = performed above average, A = excellent performance. Any class academic or physical or artistic that doesn’t have the vast majority of students receiving a C grade, meaning they are average, is problematic. Assume a middle sized high school with 2000 students, all of them have to take physical science in their first year That would be about 600 students. A normal distribution curve would mean that of those 600 freshman, if the class was fair and accurate there would be about 50 As, 125 Bs, 250 Cs, 125 D’s, and 50 kids would fail. Unless you skewed the test and lowered the standards so that low IQ kids could pass.
As a chemistry teacher that is exactly what I did, because my pay depended on student performance, regardless of student effort. If you showed up, did the work, and participated, and got at least 50% on every test, you got a C in my chemistry class. The tests were also skewed so that minimal effort could produce at least 50, but harder question did separate some of the excellent students. To fail you had to purposefully try. Part of why I did this is that there were a lot of kids who worked hard, did the work, and tried, but just mentally chemistry was beyond them, and failing a good hard working kid because he’s dumb is not acceptable in public school, any more than failing a kid in phys-ed because he’s physically far below average. Out of about 100 kids there were 20 As, 35 Bs, 40 Cs, 5 Ds and 2 Fs; I was chastised because I didn’t give out enough As, and didn’t understand that I was hurting the spirit of the students by not giving better grades based on effort not performance. Documenting that my grades accurately reflected their standardized test scores was meaningless. How students feel about themselves is more important than their actual performance. Three years of that was all I could take, I quit for a job that paid twice as much and had half the hassles. Having dozens of students contact me and thank me for preparing them for college and holding them to a realistic standard was a great reward.
For some reason culturally recognizing what everybody can see and knows isn’t acceptable. The 100 pound 5’4” asthmatic nerd is not physically above average, he’s not going to be dating the “hot” girls, he’s not going to be on the varsity squad, but you can’t give him a poor grade in phys-ed because he might make him feel bad, so the standards have been set so low he’ll get an A in phys-ed regardless of actual performance.
Physical Education standards and the thinking that lead to them crept into academic standards and thinking. The idea that everybody should be prepared to go to college, and actually go is absurd. Any student who doesn’t have at least an above average IQ and doesn’t score better than the 50th percentile on the ACT or SAT should not go to college, they don’t have the mental chops to perform at that level. Unless of course the colleges lower their standards so that people with below average IQ can pass. Sending dumb people to college is a waste of their time and money, and a waste of societies resources. The stats that say college graduates earn more money are not wrong. It’s not the college degree that earns more money, it’s the fact that more smarter people graduate college than dumb ones, and smart people earn more money than dumb people. Sorry but the 90 IQ waitress, who does an excellent job, but cannot and will not ever be able to factor simple quadratic equations shouldn’t be pushed into getting a meaningless degree.
The average high school GPA is 3.0, that means that a B is not above average but average, and on a 4.0 scale we have no meaningful measurements for excellence, the data is skewed. That’s why advanced academic students routinely have a 4.5 GPA on a 4.0 scale. The fact is intelligence and grades in high school reflect what you’ll earn in the future better than college degrees.
Note that a student with a B average in high school will earn about the average wage, and the dumber the student the lower their average wage. Now even if you’re dumb, if your 6’4” tall, can run a 10 second 100 meter dash, jump 6 feet in the air, and catch a ball thrown from 60 yards away, you can make a lot of money because you can physically perform better than just about anybody else in the world. Being sub-par academically doesn’t’ mean you can’t excel someplace else. Of course the best world class athletes are not only superior physically but superior mentally.
Education should help every student maximize their potential. It should not ignore the fact that not everybody has the same capabilities. Our education system should not ignore or try to cover up the fact that half the people have below average intelligence, and that there are relatively few people with the mental capacity to do actual higher learning. Applying physical education grading schemes to academic grades only means we are lying to kids when we say that their 3.0 GPA means they are above average. They are not; they are just average. If your kid doesn’t have at least a 3.5 GPA, you should do some rational thinking before you waste $50K or allow your kid to borrow $50K to get a degree that in reality won’t get them a better job.
Lying to our kids is wrong, telling them they are “special” and they can do “anything they want” is a lie. If your kid has an IQ less than 120, don’t encourage her to become an chemist or engineer or doctor, you’re setting her up for failure. With rare exception, the average IQ person does not have the mental capability to be a chemist or engineer or doctor. That’s a hard fact just like it’s a hard fact that the average 100 pound nerd is never going to play professional sports. We need to quit lying to ourselves and our children. Not everybody is above average.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Jimmy Carter Ended at Least One Monarchy
By Tom Rhodes, 12/3/2014
At Least one of the action of Jimmy Carter can be attributed to ending an monarchy. It was Jimmy Carter’s administration ending the prohibition of home brewed beer, that eventually lead to the rebirth of brewing in the USA. Prior to prohibition there were around 2000 breweries in the USA. In the roaring 20’s that number became zero. Today the number is now over 3000.
The monarchy that has been taken down is none other than the King of Beers, Budweiser. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that the craft beer craze, (AKA free and open markets), crowded Budweiser out of the top spot and is now down to 7.6% of the beer market, half its market share from a year ago. “Young drinkers aren’t the reason Budweiser volumes have declined in the U.S. for 25 years, from its nearly 50-million-barrel peak in 1988 to 16 million barrels last year. . . . Some 44% of 21- to 27-year-old drinkers today have never tried Budweiser”
OK, once we realized prohibition was a bad idea, we still had an overzealous government. The post-prohibition restrictions made it all but impossible for small breweries to operate. By the late 70’s there were fewer than 100 breweries.
Starting with Carter ending prohibition of home brew, there were a series of Regan initiatives that swept away ridiculous government regulatory burdens that benefitted no one except Big Beer and their taste killing, lowest-common-denominator approach.
The fact is without draconian government regulation that supported big beer, the market has exploded. Free markets always result in the consumer having more choice over a wide range of offerings. When it comes to beer, we now have a vast panoply of beers from which to choose. We now have porters, stouts, porters, lagers, porters, ales, pilsners, porters, bocks, and other variations. Did I mention we can now by a variety of good porters (I may have a preference that bias my reporting). The past decade or so has seen an explosion of craft brew that offers wonderful taste and options that the pale King of Beers, and the taste alike pilsners of the few competitors we had. We now live in the golden age of beer; Thank you Jimmy Carter.
The LPF candidate for Florida Govenor, Adrian Wyllie, did what will probably become a staple in politics. He campaigned from microbreweries all across the state. He didn’t hit them all. Even little villages like Crystal River has its own Winery and Brewery, in fact it’s the first winery and brewery in the same location ever in Florida, Cop Winery. It was a good location for the LPF candidate to visit. That visit and the work of only a few people resulted in little Citrus County returning a large percentage of LPF voting. There are more absurd regulations regarding how beer is made and sold to be removed. But it is self-evident and a historical fact that removing government regulation, revitalized a stagnant market with limited choices for the consumer.
Nothing against Budweiser, it’s a nice traditional pilsner, but when I have a choice of flavorful milk stouts, chocolate porters, and more varieties of American red ale, than I can name, why would a very light pale pilsner, that lacks depth, body, and flavor. America is buying less barrels of beer. The reason is clear, America like me, would rather have one $5 craft porter, than a 6 pack of Bud.
If you’re in Crystal River Florida, check out Cop Brewerey and order a G’Morning coffee stout, and drink a toast to Jimmy Carter, the liberal who opened up the beer market. If you in Ashville NC hoist a Greenman Porter in Carter’s honor. Spend a weekend looking for a CoCo Mole’ a spicy chocolate stout that is worth the search.
Like other monarchies, when the people are free from the “king,” they shed the crony protection and overbearing regulations of the “king,” liberty and freedom brings about a huge benefit to the people. As for me I won’t be helping much with American beer sales, I just bottled 2 cases of my very own porter thanks to the good people at ebrew.com. Free markets and competition, even from making it yourself, might be hard on big corporations, but they are good for We The People.
At Least one of the action of Jimmy Carter can be attributed to ending an monarchy. It was Jimmy Carter’s administration ending the prohibition of home brewed beer, that eventually lead to the rebirth of brewing in the USA. Prior to prohibition there were around 2000 breweries in the USA. In the roaring 20’s that number became zero. Today the number is now over 3000.
The monarchy that has been taken down is none other than the King of Beers, Budweiser. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that the craft beer craze, (AKA free and open markets), crowded Budweiser out of the top spot and is now down to 7.6% of the beer market, half its market share from a year ago. “Young drinkers aren’t the reason Budweiser volumes have declined in the U.S. for 25 years, from its nearly 50-million-barrel peak in 1988 to 16 million barrels last year. . . . Some 44% of 21- to 27-year-old drinkers today have never tried Budweiser”
OK, once we realized prohibition was a bad idea, we still had an overzealous government. The post-prohibition restrictions made it all but impossible for small breweries to operate. By the late 70’s there were fewer than 100 breweries.
Starting with Carter ending prohibition of home brew, there were a series of Regan initiatives that swept away ridiculous government regulatory burdens that benefitted no one except Big Beer and their taste killing, lowest-common-denominator approach.
The fact is without draconian government regulation that supported big beer, the market has exploded. Free markets always result in the consumer having more choice over a wide range of offerings. When it comes to beer, we now have a vast panoply of beers from which to choose. We now have porters, stouts, porters, lagers, porters, ales, pilsners, porters, bocks, and other variations. Did I mention we can now by a variety of good porters (I may have a preference that bias my reporting). The past decade or so has seen an explosion of craft brew that offers wonderful taste and options that the pale King of Beers, and the taste alike pilsners of the few competitors we had. We now live in the golden age of beer; Thank you Jimmy Carter.
The LPF candidate for Florida Govenor, Adrian Wyllie, did what will probably become a staple in politics. He campaigned from microbreweries all across the state. He didn’t hit them all. Even little villages like Crystal River has its own Winery and Brewery, in fact it’s the first winery and brewery in the same location ever in Florida, Cop Winery. It was a good location for the LPF candidate to visit. That visit and the work of only a few people resulted in little Citrus County returning a large percentage of LPF voting. There are more absurd regulations regarding how beer is made and sold to be removed. But it is self-evident and a historical fact that removing government regulation, revitalized a stagnant market with limited choices for the consumer.
Nothing against Budweiser, it’s a nice traditional pilsner, but when I have a choice of flavorful milk stouts, chocolate porters, and more varieties of American red ale, than I can name, why would a very light pale pilsner, that lacks depth, body, and flavor. America is buying less barrels of beer. The reason is clear, America like me, would rather have one $5 craft porter, than a 6 pack of Bud.
If you’re in Crystal River Florida, check out Cop Brewerey and order a G’Morning coffee stout, and drink a toast to Jimmy Carter, the liberal who opened up the beer market. If you in Ashville NC hoist a Greenman Porter in Carter’s honor. Spend a weekend looking for a CoCo Mole’ a spicy chocolate stout that is worth the search.
Like other monarchies, when the people are free from the “king,” they shed the crony protection and overbearing regulations of the “king,” liberty and freedom brings about a huge benefit to the people. As for me I won’t be helping much with American beer sales, I just bottled 2 cases of my very own porter thanks to the good people at ebrew.com. Free markets and competition, even from making it yourself, might be hard on big corporations, but they are good for We The People.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Income Inequality – a Moral Imperative
By Tom Rhodes, 12/1/2014
Income inequality is said to be a massive problem, I've noted in the past if you compare volume of government regulations to income inequality there is a direct proportionality. More Regulations = More Income Inequality. But correlation doesn't equal causation. There is probably a better determiner of income inequality - family structure.
A couple studies have come out that compare economic status and family status. The results are interesting. The hard fact, without any moral condemnation, is there is an income and wealth premium for people raised in two-parent homes.
Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.
One of the reports declares, "The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality." In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. The data from the National Survey of Children's Health, indicates only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. While in families consisting of a never-married single mothers with kids, the comparable figure is 46 percent.
Obama declared that income inequality is "the defining challenge of our time." OK then let's stop doing what we know doesn't work. The "War on Poverty" coincides with two phenomenon that dramatically correspond with increased income inequality. The destruction of the two-parent household, and the increase in State intrusion in the lives of everybody, with the State, not the people, determining winners and losers in the market, education, everything.
The reports were careful not to be judgmental, but I'm not politically correct, so I will be. The problem is moral. People who have children out of wedlock should be ashamed of themselves. People who have multiple children out of wedlock should be shunned, ostracized, and publically condemned for their immoral actions. Having one child might be a mistake, oops, lapse in judgment, accident, or whatever, and is rationally forgivable. It is not good but people are not perfect. That said it's still a tough situation that does not bode well for the child both now and in his future (for you SJW’s, when the sex of the subject is not identified the proper pronoun to use when referring to that subject is the male form; he, him, his, chairman, etc. In this case it is not sexist to use his for a generic child which may be male or female, it’s just proper grammar, get over yourselves).
Having children outside of a two-parent family, is morally bankrupt, not because the mother or father shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, but because it is more than just irresponsible to bring children into an environment that is we know is unhealthy for the child. Don’t take my word, take the word of President Obama who clearly and unequivocally said, "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol." People who have multiple children outside of a married two-parent household, have no excuses. They, not the “selfish” public, carry the sole responsibility for putting their children into a position that will in all likelihood result in privation, and bear the sole responsibility for providing for those children until they are adults.
Because currently the State provides for the children of a man who has more multiple children from different women, if he is single and not paying FULL child support for all his children; he should be forcibly castrated, and have his wages garnished to poverty levels until those kids are fully supported and adults. Such a man has proven to be of low moral character, has proven not to take full responsibility for his actions, and is a cad. Society should condemn him and his actions. Conversely, because currently the State provides for children of any woman who has children, if she is not married and is on any kind of government income assistance, she should be forced to have a tubal ligation. She has proven herself to be of low moral character, and unwilling to take full responsibility for her actions. Society should condemn her and her actions.
Being poor isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with poverty. Being rich isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with wealth. However, purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty, and make creating wealth more difficult is immoral. Promoting, encouraging, condoning, even merely accepting without condemnation, single parents with multiple children is immoral. It is purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty and that make generating wealth more difficult.
The most significant driver of income inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach. Having children outside of a two-parent household has overwhelmingly proven to be bad for children, and is proven to be a drain on society. It is immoral by any rational standard.
The libertarian solution to this moral problem is far more humane, would be more just, more effective, and more palatable than forced sterilization. End the government intrusion into the family that created the increase in single parent families. The current system rewards immoral behavior and punishes moral behavior. It’s backwards. The above idea of forcing sterilization on those who behave immorally, is tyrannical and draconian. However it is no more tyrannical and draconian than forcing those who are responsible, who created environments where they and their children prosper, to have their prosperity confiscated and redistributed to those who choose to be irresponsible. Let those who live irresponsible lives and their children suffer the consequences of their actions. Let’s be clear, I’m saying that women who have multiple children outside of marriage, and are dependent on the government to support them and their children, are unequivocally immoral and irresponsible. They are not hero’s, they should not be praised for being single mothers, they are examples of moral rot. They should not be given any government support. They and their children’s privation will be examples to what happens if you choose to live an immoral lifestyle.
Current government assistant programs let a woman substitute the government as provider for her and her children instead of their father. The government is a poor substitute for a husband and father. As Obama noted, when the government not the father, is the protector and provider of children, they are more likely to be poor, to be dropouts, to be addicts, and more likely to be criminals. Because the government will and does act as protector and provider the sacrifices necessary by women to stay with fathers, and not have babies without a father no longer exists. The feminist idea that women don’t need men to be complete ignores reality. The evidence is clear, the data doesn’t lie, it doesn’t make moral judgments, the fact is women and children need a husband and father, without one they are far more likely to live and remain in poverty.
In the USA income inequality isn’t a sign of an unjust system that holds some people back, it is the direct result of people who choose to live immoral lives and abandon the traditions and morality that created the wealthiest most prosperous society the world ever saw. Our society cannot survive the moral rot that has created laws that punish moral behavior and reward immorality.
Many economists, like Dr. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. have said for years, the path to success and living in relative prosperity is simple. 1) Finish high school, 2) Get a job, 3) Get married, 4) Have children, and do those things in that order. What that reflects is traditional family morals. Condoning, empowering, helping, or in any way promoting people who choose to live outside of that simple plan isn’t just wrong, it’s immoral.
Income inequality is said to be a massive problem, I've noted in the past if you compare volume of government regulations to income inequality there is a direct proportionality. More Regulations = More Income Inequality. But correlation doesn't equal causation. There is probably a better determiner of income inequality - family structure.
A couple studies have come out that compare economic status and family status. The results are interesting. The hard fact, without any moral condemnation, is there is an income and wealth premium for people raised in two-parent homes.
Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.
One of the reports declares, "The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality." In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. The data from the National Survey of Children's Health, indicates only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. While in families consisting of a never-married single mothers with kids, the comparable figure is 46 percent.
Obama declared that income inequality is "the defining challenge of our time." OK then let's stop doing what we know doesn't work. The "War on Poverty" coincides with two phenomenon that dramatically correspond with increased income inequality. The destruction of the two-parent household, and the increase in State intrusion in the lives of everybody, with the State, not the people, determining winners and losers in the market, education, everything.
The reports were careful not to be judgmental, but I'm not politically correct, so I will be. The problem is moral. People who have children out of wedlock should be ashamed of themselves. People who have multiple children out of wedlock should be shunned, ostracized, and publically condemned for their immoral actions. Having one child might be a mistake, oops, lapse in judgment, accident, or whatever, and is rationally forgivable. It is not good but people are not perfect. That said it's still a tough situation that does not bode well for the child both now and in his future (for you SJW’s, when the sex of the subject is not identified the proper pronoun to use when referring to that subject is the male form; he, him, his, chairman, etc. In this case it is not sexist to use his for a generic child which may be male or female, it’s just proper grammar, get over yourselves).
Having children outside of a two-parent family, is morally bankrupt, not because the mother or father shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, but because it is more than just irresponsible to bring children into an environment that is we know is unhealthy for the child. Don’t take my word, take the word of President Obama who clearly and unequivocally said, "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol." People who have multiple children outside of a married two-parent household, have no excuses. They, not the “selfish” public, carry the sole responsibility for putting their children into a position that will in all likelihood result in privation, and bear the sole responsibility for providing for those children until they are adults.
Because currently the State provides for the children of a man who has more multiple children from different women, if he is single and not paying FULL child support for all his children; he should be forcibly castrated, and have his wages garnished to poverty levels until those kids are fully supported and adults. Such a man has proven to be of low moral character, has proven not to take full responsibility for his actions, and is a cad. Society should condemn him and his actions. Conversely, because currently the State provides for children of any woman who has children, if she is not married and is on any kind of government income assistance, she should be forced to have a tubal ligation. She has proven herself to be of low moral character, and unwilling to take full responsibility for her actions. Society should condemn her and her actions.
Being poor isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with poverty. Being rich isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with wealth. However, purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty, and make creating wealth more difficult is immoral. Promoting, encouraging, condoning, even merely accepting without condemnation, single parents with multiple children is immoral. It is purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty and that make generating wealth more difficult.
The most significant driver of income inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach. Having children outside of a two-parent household has overwhelmingly proven to be bad for children, and is proven to be a drain on society. It is immoral by any rational standard.
The libertarian solution to this moral problem is far more humane, would be more just, more effective, and more palatable than forced sterilization. End the government intrusion into the family that created the increase in single parent families. The current system rewards immoral behavior and punishes moral behavior. It’s backwards. The above idea of forcing sterilization on those who behave immorally, is tyrannical and draconian. However it is no more tyrannical and draconian than forcing those who are responsible, who created environments where they and their children prosper, to have their prosperity confiscated and redistributed to those who choose to be irresponsible. Let those who live irresponsible lives and their children suffer the consequences of their actions. Let’s be clear, I’m saying that women who have multiple children outside of marriage, and are dependent on the government to support them and their children, are unequivocally immoral and irresponsible. They are not hero’s, they should not be praised for being single mothers, they are examples of moral rot. They should not be given any government support. They and their children’s privation will be examples to what happens if you choose to live an immoral lifestyle.
Current government assistant programs let a woman substitute the government as provider for her and her children instead of their father. The government is a poor substitute for a husband and father. As Obama noted, when the government not the father, is the protector and provider of children, they are more likely to be poor, to be dropouts, to be addicts, and more likely to be criminals. Because the government will and does act as protector and provider the sacrifices necessary by women to stay with fathers, and not have babies without a father no longer exists. The feminist idea that women don’t need men to be complete ignores reality. The evidence is clear, the data doesn’t lie, it doesn’t make moral judgments, the fact is women and children need a husband and father, without one they are far more likely to live and remain in poverty.
In the USA income inequality isn’t a sign of an unjust system that holds some people back, it is the direct result of people who choose to live immoral lives and abandon the traditions and morality that created the wealthiest most prosperous society the world ever saw. Our society cannot survive the moral rot that has created laws that punish moral behavior and reward immorality.
Many economists, like Dr. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. have said for years, the path to success and living in relative prosperity is simple. 1) Finish high school, 2) Get a job, 3) Get married, 4) Have children, and do those things in that order. What that reflects is traditional family morals. Condoning, empowering, helping, or in any way promoting people who choose to live outside of that simple plan isn’t just wrong, it’s immoral.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Why the Divide in Politics will get Worse!
By Tom Rhodes, 5/14/2014
The reason America seems so divided is because it is. In big ways that polite society doesn’t talk about. That is because the country no longer has a set of shared goals. Specifically the left believes statism and control are more important than liberty, to the point that they would rather everybody universally poor than for there to be free individuals who the state doesn’t monitor and control. The idea that an average person outside of the ruling elite could become more successful and be outside of ruling elites control is not tolerable.
It’s not that they care if any individual is rich or poor, but that the ruling elite are in control. Consider California, where massive numbers of productive citizens are leaving in record numbers, the economy sucks and cannot support itself; 600,000 industrial jobs gone in the last 15 yrs; electricity 50% higher than national average; millionaires in 47 other states pay less income tax than a middle class worker earning $48K does in California; Public employee pentions are bankrupting the entire state; California has 25 billion barrels of oil sitting untapped in the Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits, yet sends billions of dollars to Texas, Canada and elsewhere to buy natural gas and oil that it could have produced itself; Twitter, Telsa, Toyota, Adobe, eBay, Occidental petroleum, ARCO, Getty Oil, Union Oil, and Oracle, among other major California companies, have moved or announced they will move out of California to another US State. The laws and regulations of California are driving away people and business. Despite the humiliating economic statistics, California Democrats continue the same statist path.
The reason is clear jobs, companies, and individuals living in California are not the goals for those in charge. Prosperity is not important to the left. Power and control are their goals, in fact the worse the economy, the more people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the more control statists have over those people and more importantly more will vote for whoever promises more stuff from government, Democrats.
Consider guns. The facts are pretty clear, all of the dire predictions have proven to be false. More guns and more people allowed to carry guns rather than result in increased crime as proven to reduce overall violent crime to levels not seen in a century (you wouldn’t know that reading the statist MSM). The hatred over guns is not that you might use them for self-protection, or that they might be used in crime, but that the people might successfully stop the increase in state power. Bundy in Nevada proved exactly what the left fears; that an armed society can and will stand up to an oppressive over controlling government. The second amendment severely restricts the power of the ruling elite, it’s hard to control an armed population.
Consider Freedom of Speech and the entire Bill of Rights. The statist LA Times won’t even allow dissenting opinions on subjects used to control the people to be printed. The left loudly cheered the NFL chastising and forcing Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones, who dared tweet offense at the faggot kiss of the first openly gay NFL player, to pay a fine and be forced go to indoctrination camp to learn how to think correctly. Soon the statist gay mafia will declare it illegal to be a Christian and publicly read the bible. Look at how Tebow was treated compared to the new NFL fairy.
Rule of law – statists believe they aren’t subject to the same rules, and can ignore the representatives of the people. Obama changing Obamacare dozens of times without legal authority is proof enough. But claiming that he can execute US citizens without due process means that we know the government no longer plays by the rules so We the People don’t have to either. Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution clearly states “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Because the statists in Washington are not able to control everything and every body, they are openly violationg the constitution; Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is openly and purposefully proposing what he clearly knows to be unconstitutional ex post facto legislation, saying "I don't approach retroactivity in legislation lightly, but corporations must understand that they won't profit from abandoning the US..." Power is more important than the rule of law.
The reason we are seeing such division and strife in American politics is because we the statist left, does not share the American Dream, in fact they want to “fundamentally change” the country to rule by elite oligarchy. It will only get worse prepare for it.
The reason America seems so divided is because it is. In big ways that polite society doesn’t talk about. That is because the country no longer has a set of shared goals. Specifically the left believes statism and control are more important than liberty, to the point that they would rather everybody universally poor than for there to be free individuals who the state doesn’t monitor and control. The idea that an average person outside of the ruling elite could become more successful and be outside of ruling elites control is not tolerable.
It’s not that they care if any individual is rich or poor, but that the ruling elite are in control. Consider California, where massive numbers of productive citizens are leaving in record numbers, the economy sucks and cannot support itself; 600,000 industrial jobs gone in the last 15 yrs; electricity 50% higher than national average; millionaires in 47 other states pay less income tax than a middle class worker earning $48K does in California; Public employee pentions are bankrupting the entire state; California has 25 billion barrels of oil sitting untapped in the Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits, yet sends billions of dollars to Texas, Canada and elsewhere to buy natural gas and oil that it could have produced itself; Twitter, Telsa, Toyota, Adobe, eBay, Occidental petroleum, ARCO, Getty Oil, Union Oil, and Oracle, among other major California companies, have moved or announced they will move out of California to another US State. The laws and regulations of California are driving away people and business. Despite the humiliating economic statistics, California Democrats continue the same statist path.
The reason is clear jobs, companies, and individuals living in California are not the goals for those in charge. Prosperity is not important to the left. Power and control are their goals, in fact the worse the economy, the more people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the more control statists have over those people and more importantly more will vote for whoever promises more stuff from government, Democrats.
Consider guns. The facts are pretty clear, all of the dire predictions have proven to be false. More guns and more people allowed to carry guns rather than result in increased crime as proven to reduce overall violent crime to levels not seen in a century (you wouldn’t know that reading the statist MSM). The hatred over guns is not that you might use them for self-protection, or that they might be used in crime, but that the people might successfully stop the increase in state power. Bundy in Nevada proved exactly what the left fears; that an armed society can and will stand up to an oppressive over controlling government. The second amendment severely restricts the power of the ruling elite, it’s hard to control an armed population.
Consider Freedom of Speech and the entire Bill of Rights. The statist LA Times won’t even allow dissenting opinions on subjects used to control the people to be printed. The left loudly cheered the NFL chastising and forcing Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones, who dared tweet offense at the faggot kiss of the first openly gay NFL player, to pay a fine and be forced go to indoctrination camp to learn how to think correctly. Soon the statist gay mafia will declare it illegal to be a Christian and publicly read the bible. Look at how Tebow was treated compared to the new NFL fairy.
Rule of law – statists believe they aren’t subject to the same rules, and can ignore the representatives of the people. Obama changing Obamacare dozens of times without legal authority is proof enough. But claiming that he can execute US citizens without due process means that we know the government no longer plays by the rules so We the People don’t have to either. Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution clearly states “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Because the statists in Washington are not able to control everything and every body, they are openly violationg the constitution; Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is openly and purposefully proposing what he clearly knows to be unconstitutional ex post facto legislation, saying "I don't approach retroactivity in legislation lightly, but corporations must understand that they won't profit from abandoning the US..." Power is more important than the rule of law.
The reason we are seeing such division and strife in American politics is because we the statist left, does not share the American Dream, in fact they want to “fundamentally change” the country to rule by elite oligarchy. It will only get worse prepare for it.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Throwaway Society
By Tom Rhodes, 4/18/2013
Environmentalists, leftists, and statists lament the fact that we live in a throwaway society. Where rather than fix or recycle something our society suffers from over-consumption. The source is almost always attributed to greedy capitalists. What if it isn’t greedy capitalists, but the natural reaction to the actual costs of having too much government? First we need to look at the costs of goods, not the price.
No they are not the same. The price is the dollar figure used to transact a trade of goods or services between people, not the cost. The cost includes intangibles such as time, effort, travel costs, etc. Gasoline costs $3.50 a gallon where I live in Citrus County, South of me in Hernando Co. I can purchase gas for $3.20 a gallon. I don’t drive 40 miles south to save 20 cents a gallon on the purchase price because the cost in wear and tear on my vehicle, miles driven, and my time mean paying 20 cents more locally is more cost effective even though the price is higher. That’s just using the easily visible intangible costs to that gallon of gas.
The true cost includes what I had to do to get that $3.50 to trade for the gallon of gas. I’m in a tax bracket that results in me receiving only 72% of my contracted salary, the Federal Government gets the rest. So for me have $3.50 in my pocket I have to do $4.86 of work. I’ll use easy numbers to explain this. If I earned $35/hr and was allowed to keep all the fruit of my labor, I exchange an hour of work for 10 gallons of gas, however, because the government makes prior claims to my labor, I either need to earn $49/hr or work 1.4 hours to get that same 10 gallons of gas.
Now if instead of gas it was a repair service. Say I have a washing machine that needs to be fixed. The repair man says he can fix it for $200 and I’m willing to fix it for $200. Problem solved, but….. the government gets involved and the repair man is taxed and pays both the employee and employer side of the taxes. So instead of him gaining $200 for that repair he only nets $120. His time and effort doing other things has value to him, so to make repairing that washing machine a viable transaction he has to charge me $333. Not so Fast, I’m willing to pay $200 to do the repair, but at $333, not so much. In fact rather than pay $333 to fix a 5 year old machine, I haul it to the metal scrapper and get $10 for scrap metal and purchase a new unit for $500. The unintended consequence of the taxes extracted by government is that many transactions just don’t happen because the costs make them nonviable. People can and do change their behavior based on taxes, so raising taxes has historically proven not to garner corresponding increases in revenue.
Rather than repair and recycle we routinely toss out and replace, because to repair and recycle is cost prohibitive, not necessarily just the price of the unit. Why have a computer printer repaired. A typical diagnosis and repair of a printer takes about 2 hours, to be profitable, pay the wages, insurance, and taxes required by government means that to do computer/printer repairs, a shop must charge $50 to $100/hr or more. So minimally without any parts a printer repair will be in the $100 range. Considering high quality printers can be purchased for as little as $50, who would repair one. Intangibles in computer repair include such things as regulations in dealing with disposing of old circuit boards etc. increasing costs disproportionate to the price the market will bear. Recycling them is equally cost prohibitive. Why take the parts from 3 or 4 broken printers and build 1 or 2 good working units and have spare parts, when it would take a skilled technician 3-4 hours to do that work. If the tax burden on skilled labor and other regulatory costs weren’t so high, repair of printers, and other small appliances, would be viable.
How about plastic blister packaging now used for just about everything? Believe it or not that can also be attributed to too much government. Retail stores used to have clerks who knew what they were selling, and more importantly could monitor the counter, small expensive items would be kept in a counter and the customer would be served. Because government taxes and minimum wage laws make hiring entry people more expensive, it is more cost (not price) effective to put them in plastic blister packs, too big to easily conceal to protect against theft, and have fewer clerks to service customers. Rather than have a clerk count 1 or 2 items from a box of 100 for the customer, small expensive items are in big blister packs, resulting in massive amounts of plastic waste in our landfills. There is no reason for a 4X6” packaging for a micro-SD memory card, but the alternative is having people control their sale, the result is less jobs and more waste because the cost of low skilled labor is artificially greater than income it generates. RFID chips, plastic blister packs, etc. are all created because the costs are lower than having people actually provide low skill services in retail. Minimum wage and income taxes helped create throwaway society.
People don’t just look at price they look at TCO, total cost of ownership. Because government interference has dramatically increased the costs to do business, we’ve become a throwaway society, where we accept goods from sources that don’t have our massive government burden. When I was young there were many small appliance repair shops across the country, where for a reasonable fee you could have your toaster fixed, new brushes put into the motor of your mixer, etc. Technology and automation killed that type of business, new products last longer and just don’t break as much, or can be sold so cheaply (because they are built by robots) that replacement costs less than repair. This is one of the unintended consequences of more and more government, regulations and taxes make fixing things too expensive.
Environmentalists, leftists, and statists lament the fact that we live in a throwaway society. Where rather than fix or recycle something our society suffers from over-consumption. The source is almost always attributed to greedy capitalists. What if it isn’t greedy capitalists, but the natural reaction to the actual costs of having too much government? First we need to look at the costs of goods, not the price.
No they are not the same. The price is the dollar figure used to transact a trade of goods or services between people, not the cost. The cost includes intangibles such as time, effort, travel costs, etc. Gasoline costs $3.50 a gallon where I live in Citrus County, South of me in Hernando Co. I can purchase gas for $3.20 a gallon. I don’t drive 40 miles south to save 20 cents a gallon on the purchase price because the cost in wear and tear on my vehicle, miles driven, and my time mean paying 20 cents more locally is more cost effective even though the price is higher. That’s just using the easily visible intangible costs to that gallon of gas.
The true cost includes what I had to do to get that $3.50 to trade for the gallon of gas. I’m in a tax bracket that results in me receiving only 72% of my contracted salary, the Federal Government gets the rest. So for me have $3.50 in my pocket I have to do $4.86 of work. I’ll use easy numbers to explain this. If I earned $35/hr and was allowed to keep all the fruit of my labor, I exchange an hour of work for 10 gallons of gas, however, because the government makes prior claims to my labor, I either need to earn $49/hr or work 1.4 hours to get that same 10 gallons of gas.
Now if instead of gas it was a repair service. Say I have a washing machine that needs to be fixed. The repair man says he can fix it for $200 and I’m willing to fix it for $200. Problem solved, but….. the government gets involved and the repair man is taxed and pays both the employee and employer side of the taxes. So instead of him gaining $200 for that repair he only nets $120. His time and effort doing other things has value to him, so to make repairing that washing machine a viable transaction he has to charge me $333. Not so Fast, I’m willing to pay $200 to do the repair, but at $333, not so much. In fact rather than pay $333 to fix a 5 year old machine, I haul it to the metal scrapper and get $10 for scrap metal and purchase a new unit for $500. The unintended consequence of the taxes extracted by government is that many transactions just don’t happen because the costs make them nonviable. People can and do change their behavior based on taxes, so raising taxes has historically proven not to garner corresponding increases in revenue.
Rather than repair and recycle we routinely toss out and replace, because to repair and recycle is cost prohibitive, not necessarily just the price of the unit. Why have a computer printer repaired. A typical diagnosis and repair of a printer takes about 2 hours, to be profitable, pay the wages, insurance, and taxes required by government means that to do computer/printer repairs, a shop must charge $50 to $100/hr or more. So minimally without any parts a printer repair will be in the $100 range. Considering high quality printers can be purchased for as little as $50, who would repair one. Intangibles in computer repair include such things as regulations in dealing with disposing of old circuit boards etc. increasing costs disproportionate to the price the market will bear. Recycling them is equally cost prohibitive. Why take the parts from 3 or 4 broken printers and build 1 or 2 good working units and have spare parts, when it would take a skilled technician 3-4 hours to do that work. If the tax burden on skilled labor and other regulatory costs weren’t so high, repair of printers, and other small appliances, would be viable.
How about plastic blister packaging now used for just about everything? Believe it or not that can also be attributed to too much government. Retail stores used to have clerks who knew what they were selling, and more importantly could monitor the counter, small expensive items would be kept in a counter and the customer would be served. Because government taxes and minimum wage laws make hiring entry people more expensive, it is more cost (not price) effective to put them in plastic blister packs, too big to easily conceal to protect against theft, and have fewer clerks to service customers. Rather than have a clerk count 1 or 2 items from a box of 100 for the customer, small expensive items are in big blister packs, resulting in massive amounts of plastic waste in our landfills. There is no reason for a 4X6” packaging for a micro-SD memory card, but the alternative is having people control their sale, the result is less jobs and more waste because the cost of low skilled labor is artificially greater than income it generates. RFID chips, plastic blister packs, etc. are all created because the costs are lower than having people actually provide low skill services in retail. Minimum wage and income taxes helped create throwaway society.
People don’t just look at price they look at TCO, total cost of ownership. Because government interference has dramatically increased the costs to do business, we’ve become a throwaway society, where we accept goods from sources that don’t have our massive government burden. When I was young there were many small appliance repair shops across the country, where for a reasonable fee you could have your toaster fixed, new brushes put into the motor of your mixer, etc. Technology and automation killed that type of business, new products last longer and just don’t break as much, or can be sold so cheaply (because they are built by robots) that replacement costs less than repair. This is one of the unintended consequences of more and more government, regulations and taxes make fixing things too expensive.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Marriage - My Changed Position
By Tom Rhodes, 3/6/2013
I am a self proclaimed Christian Libertarian, and have defended the traditional definition of marriage and been against so called Gay-Marriage. My position has been that government shouldn't be in the marriage business, Period! Now I renounce my position and now support broader definitions of marriage. Not because I've changed my views or beliefs, but pragmatically it would be a wonderful method to hamstring government a little. The basis of legal homogamy is that if two people "love" each other they should be able to have long term committed relationship and legal rights as if they were "one" regardless of sex.
As the discussion in the Supreme Court has indicated, once homogamy is legal, the rationale for limiting polygamy will be non-existent. In fact a wide variety of "marriage" types would be viable. Read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for an in depth discussion on various types of marriages including two men and one women called a "troika," as well as "polyandries, clans, groups, lines, and less common patterns considered vulgar by conservative people."
Here is why I now support legal homogamy: It will save the family farm. Every year family farms are broken up and sold (usually to big conglomerates) because of the death of the farmer, the inheritance taxes are so great to pay them the farm must be sold. Once marriage has been redefined to be a joining of people who love each other not just a man and one or more women, the family farm will be saved. Legal homogamy will lead to the end of all inheritance taxes. As Jeremy Irons correctly identified, a father could marry his son to avoid inheritance taxes.
The homosexual mantra is that if two individuals love each other they should be able to marry each other and receive the legal benefits of marriage. This will be a boon to partnerships of all kinds, two, or even three, four, or a dozen, who are partners in a business and want to avoid taxes and other legal intrusion of the government in their business could just get married. This would pretty much end any type of inheritance tax and insure the orderly transition of property from generation to generation without it being gobbled up by the government.
Like virtually all government regulation, there are unintended consequences. If we accept the idea that homosexuality is no longer immoral, what grounds do we have for not similarly declaring incest, polygamy, or any type of "love" to be morally acceptable as well? The homosexual lobby has not offered logical reasoning to this question. If traditional marriage, accepted by virtually all societies for thousands of years is no longer valid, why can't any variation of marriage be valid?
The objective truth is that two men or two women cannot ever marry because marriage is a particular relationship between a man and one or more women. Marriage and its definition predate every government on earth. Government didn't create marriage so should define it either. What is clear is that if the government doesn't get out of the marriage business, marriage will be meaningless and just another means of avoiding government taxes, and not a foundational institute of society.
In as much as the government generally perverts and corrupts most things it touches, marriage is no exception. Let's go ahead and allow any type of "marriage" to be legal, it will be the best method to insure pass down our property to our progeny and other loved ones. Widow or Widower near death yourself, don't want all your property to get gobbled up in taxes the solution is easy, marry your grandkid, that way when you die all your wealth is passed down without the government getting its greedy paws on it. Legalizing homogamy makes "marriage" meaningless, as long as we are going to do that, let's take advantage of it and screw the government out of inheritance taxes all together.
I am a self proclaimed Christian Libertarian, and have defended the traditional definition of marriage and been against so called Gay-Marriage. My position has been that government shouldn't be in the marriage business, Period! Now I renounce my position and now support broader definitions of marriage. Not because I've changed my views or beliefs, but pragmatically it would be a wonderful method to hamstring government a little. The basis of legal homogamy is that if two people "love" each other they should be able to have long term committed relationship and legal rights as if they were "one" regardless of sex.
As the discussion in the Supreme Court has indicated, once homogamy is legal, the rationale for limiting polygamy will be non-existent. In fact a wide variety of "marriage" types would be viable. Read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for an in depth discussion on various types of marriages including two men and one women called a "troika," as well as "polyandries, clans, groups, lines, and less common patterns considered vulgar by conservative people."
Here is why I now support legal homogamy: It will save the family farm. Every year family farms are broken up and sold (usually to big conglomerates) because of the death of the farmer, the inheritance taxes are so great to pay them the farm must be sold. Once marriage has been redefined to be a joining of people who love each other not just a man and one or more women, the family farm will be saved. Legal homogamy will lead to the end of all inheritance taxes. As Jeremy Irons correctly identified, a father could marry his son to avoid inheritance taxes.
The homosexual mantra is that if two individuals love each other they should be able to marry each other and receive the legal benefits of marriage. This will be a boon to partnerships of all kinds, two, or even three, four, or a dozen, who are partners in a business and want to avoid taxes and other legal intrusion of the government in their business could just get married. This would pretty much end any type of inheritance tax and insure the orderly transition of property from generation to generation without it being gobbled up by the government.
Like virtually all government regulation, there are unintended consequences. If we accept the idea that homosexuality is no longer immoral, what grounds do we have for not similarly declaring incest, polygamy, or any type of "love" to be morally acceptable as well? The homosexual lobby has not offered logical reasoning to this question. If traditional marriage, accepted by virtually all societies for thousands of years is no longer valid, why can't any variation of marriage be valid?
The objective truth is that two men or two women cannot ever marry because marriage is a particular relationship between a man and one or more women. Marriage and its definition predate every government on earth. Government didn't create marriage so should define it either. What is clear is that if the government doesn't get out of the marriage business, marriage will be meaningless and just another means of avoiding government taxes, and not a foundational institute of society.
In as much as the government generally perverts and corrupts most things it touches, marriage is no exception. Let's go ahead and allow any type of "marriage" to be legal, it will be the best method to insure pass down our property to our progeny and other loved ones. Widow or Widower near death yourself, don't want all your property to get gobbled up in taxes the solution is easy, marry your grandkid, that way when you die all your wealth is passed down without the government getting its greedy paws on it. Legalizing homogamy makes "marriage" meaningless, as long as we are going to do that, let's take advantage of it and screw the government out of inheritance taxes all together.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Middle Class Going Galt
By Tom Rhodes, 3/20/2013
"Going Galt" a libertarian phrase that's not familiar to a lot of people but is gaining popularity in the public lexicon. It refers to people moving or taking other actions to reduce the amount of money confiscated by government, by taking their property and business outside of the government's confiscation ability. The most famous example in the US is Phil Mickelson contemplating retiring or moving to avoid excessive taxes. The news was filled with examples are French moving to England, Luxemburg, etc. to avoid new confiscatory taxes. Even extreme lefty Bill Maher is saying the Rich Pay their fair share.
It's relatively easy, for a person like Phil Mickelson, to go Galt. He has enough assets to live out his life comfortably without ever working again. For the average middle class person it's not so easy, but it's not impossible. The middle class going Galt is why Detroit went from an industrial powerhouse to a wasteland. Those people and businesses who could, left. My parents went Galt and escaped Detroit in 1972. What do I mean by they went Galt?
My dad left a major company in Detroit working as an automotive engineer with several prominent patents to his name to working as an electrician Florida. Went debt free and stayed that way. He went from working 70 hour work weeks to 40, but by moving to a state without income taxes, and a much smaller government foot print, we lived a similar standard of living on less total money. Much of America is doing just that. Private debt has fallen significantly since the bubble burst in 2008. Although many idiots still live with excessive credit card and other debt, much of America is listening to Dave Ramsey and seriously getting debt free, no credit card debt, no car payment, not even a mortgage if possible.
This is how the middle class go Galt. When the middle class decides to buy a $2500 clunker instead of plopping $2500 down on a new car and paying $400/mo to service that new debt, it changes the game. Banks don't make interest and the government is denied taxes from the sale of a new car. The more people do this the more it hurts the WallStreet-Kstreet cabal. It helps out your local garage, and smaller business.
The most common example of going Galt is Retirees, who do it all the time. Work and live in NY or Wisconsin for 40 years, then take your toys and move to Florida to retire, avoiding the property, income, and other taxes of those socialist states. Yes the weather is better, but more importantly the government no longer gets significant parts of your retirement income. Moderate homes in low crime areas are available in Florida for less than $75K, and have less than $1000/yr property taxes. Sell your Appleton Wi, home for a quarter million, move to Florida, pocket $150K, and reduce your annual tax burden by $4K/year. Put that money you profited from the sale of your home into a modest investment account, and it will return $6K a year. Thus moving from Appleton to a small town in Florida nets Grandma and Grandpa $10K a year and they don't have to shovel the sidewalk.
Taking your money out of the bank, buying silver or gold, or other tangible assets is also part of going Galt. Using cash and barter are all going Galt. Living smaller than you have too and saving is going Galt. Small businesses that decide to stay under 50 employees when they could expand but the owner decides the extra government intrusion isn't worth the effort is going Galt.
The fact is, like every similar society in history before us, our society is degrading and disintegrating economically, politically, socially, morally and spiritually. America is in permanent decline, period. Statists and leftists want to erode private property rights to prolong the illusion that our society is still stable and viable. The statists depend on a "dependent" society. Being independent, able to farm your own yard, fix your own car, live within your means, trade and barter and avoid the government is all part of going Galt. Those actions are make you independent, they are also biblical; 1ST Thessalonians 4:11-12 says, "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."
You don't have to be rich to go Galt, just quit playing the statist game.
"Going Galt" a libertarian phrase that's not familiar to a lot of people but is gaining popularity in the public lexicon. It refers to people moving or taking other actions to reduce the amount of money confiscated by government, by taking their property and business outside of the government's confiscation ability. The most famous example in the US is Phil Mickelson contemplating retiring or moving to avoid excessive taxes. The news was filled with examples are French moving to England, Luxemburg, etc. to avoid new confiscatory taxes. Even extreme lefty Bill Maher is saying the Rich Pay their fair share.
It's relatively easy, for a person like Phil Mickelson, to go Galt. He has enough assets to live out his life comfortably without ever working again. For the average middle class person it's not so easy, but it's not impossible. The middle class going Galt is why Detroit went from an industrial powerhouse to a wasteland. Those people and businesses who could, left. My parents went Galt and escaped Detroit in 1972. What do I mean by they went Galt?
My dad left a major company in Detroit working as an automotive engineer with several prominent patents to his name to working as an electrician Florida. Went debt free and stayed that way. He went from working 70 hour work weeks to 40, but by moving to a state without income taxes, and a much smaller government foot print, we lived a similar standard of living on less total money. Much of America is doing just that. Private debt has fallen significantly since the bubble burst in 2008. Although many idiots still live with excessive credit card and other debt, much of America is listening to Dave Ramsey and seriously getting debt free, no credit card debt, no car payment, not even a mortgage if possible.
This is how the middle class go Galt. When the middle class decides to buy a $2500 clunker instead of plopping $2500 down on a new car and paying $400/mo to service that new debt, it changes the game. Banks don't make interest and the government is denied taxes from the sale of a new car. The more people do this the more it hurts the WallStreet-Kstreet cabal. It helps out your local garage, and smaller business.
The most common example of going Galt is Retirees, who do it all the time. Work and live in NY or Wisconsin for 40 years, then take your toys and move to Florida to retire, avoiding the property, income, and other taxes of those socialist states. Yes the weather is better, but more importantly the government no longer gets significant parts of your retirement income. Moderate homes in low crime areas are available in Florida for less than $75K, and have less than $1000/yr property taxes. Sell your Appleton Wi, home for a quarter million, move to Florida, pocket $150K, and reduce your annual tax burden by $4K/year. Put that money you profited from the sale of your home into a modest investment account, and it will return $6K a year. Thus moving from Appleton to a small town in Florida nets Grandma and Grandpa $10K a year and they don't have to shovel the sidewalk.
Taking your money out of the bank, buying silver or gold, or other tangible assets is also part of going Galt. Using cash and barter are all going Galt. Living smaller than you have too and saving is going Galt. Small businesses that decide to stay under 50 employees when they could expand but the owner decides the extra government intrusion isn't worth the effort is going Galt.
The fact is, like every similar society in history before us, our society is degrading and disintegrating economically, politically, socially, morally and spiritually. America is in permanent decline, period. Statists and leftists want to erode private property rights to prolong the illusion that our society is still stable and viable. The statists depend on a "dependent" society. Being independent, able to farm your own yard, fix your own car, live within your means, trade and barter and avoid the government is all part of going Galt. Those actions are make you independent, they are also biblical; 1ST Thessalonians 4:11-12 says, "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."
You don't have to be rich to go Galt, just quit playing the statist game.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Best Money I Ever Spent.
By Tom Rhodes, 3/18/2013
A little over 2 years ago I replaced my antique thermostat with a programmable digital thermostat that cost me $25 from the local hardware store. I set the cooling program to only cool to 85 degrees from 7AM to 3:30PM, and from 3:30PM to 7AM cool to 80 degrees. I set the heating program to only heat the house to 60 except from 5:30 to 7 am and from 3:30PM to 10PM where I heat to 70 degrees. Although weekend programs can be different this is the schedule for every day. If I’m home during the hot part of the day on weekends I override the program. The results were excellent. Heating and cooling are weather dependent, so results will vary and this is not a savings for anybody whose house isn't consistently empty for significant parts of the day; but I’ve averaged using about 250KWH less electricity every month (right at 25% less electricity). It’s an important 250KWH as it keeps me under 1000KWH/month and they charge more for every KWH over 1000/month. The results since installing it are that I’ve saved over $750. My bank account isn't $750 bigger but I have more motorcycle farkles.
So an investment of $25 and 30 min of my time resulted in an average of saving $30/month every month. Even if I paid an HVAC company to replace the thermostat and paid 5 times as much, a modern digital thermostat correctly programmed can be a huge savings. The studies show that this isn’t typical and programmable thermostats don’t make a difference. Because most homes don’t sit empty for 9-12 hours a day to take advantage of programming less heating and cooling while a home is empty, this should be no surprise.
I know it's not the usual political subject, but think of it this way, the results are by reducing my electric usage by 25%, not only did save money but I denied the government about 25% of the tax dollars they would have collected based on my electrical consumption. So by reducing my spending on a federally taxed product, I’m starving the beast, and starving the beast is good. It's also an example of how efficient the voluntary free market can work to lower costs and put more money in everybody's pocket.
On a personal note, I work for the power company, so don’t any of you follow my example, it might cut into my 401K.
A little over 2 years ago I replaced my antique thermostat with a programmable digital thermostat that cost me $25 from the local hardware store. I set the cooling program to only cool to 85 degrees from 7AM to 3:30PM, and from 3:30PM to 7AM cool to 80 degrees. I set the heating program to only heat the house to 60 except from 5:30 to 7 am and from 3:30PM to 10PM where I heat to 70 degrees. Although weekend programs can be different this is the schedule for every day. If I’m home during the hot part of the day on weekends I override the program. The results were excellent. Heating and cooling are weather dependent, so results will vary and this is not a savings for anybody whose house isn't consistently empty for significant parts of the day; but I’ve averaged using about 250KWH less electricity every month (right at 25% less electricity). It’s an important 250KWH as it keeps me under 1000KWH/month and they charge more for every KWH over 1000/month. The results since installing it are that I’ve saved over $750. My bank account isn't $750 bigger but I have more motorcycle farkles.
So an investment of $25 and 30 min of my time resulted in an average of saving $30/month every month. Even if I paid an HVAC company to replace the thermostat and paid 5 times as much, a modern digital thermostat correctly programmed can be a huge savings. The studies show that this isn’t typical and programmable thermostats don’t make a difference. Because most homes don’t sit empty for 9-12 hours a day to take advantage of programming less heating and cooling while a home is empty, this should be no surprise.
I know it's not the usual political subject, but think of it this way, the results are by reducing my electric usage by 25%, not only did save money but I denied the government about 25% of the tax dollars they would have collected based on my electrical consumption. So by reducing my spending on a federally taxed product, I’m starving the beast, and starving the beast is good. It's also an example of how efficient the voluntary free market can work to lower costs and put more money in everybody's pocket.
On a personal note, I work for the power company, so don’t any of you follow my example, it might cut into my 401K.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Minimum Wage - Another Disaster Promoted by Obama
By Tom Rhodes, 2/27/2013
Obama has proposed a $9/hr minimum wage. That's a 25% increase over the current minimum wage. What do you think will happen if he gets his way? If you think poor people will be better off your wrong. What it will do is the same thing that happens to anything that has a 25% price increase, people will buy less of it. Economists agree raising the minimum wage would have a negative effect on low skilled workers. New and entry workers, aka low skilled workers, are those who earn the minimum. They will be the hardest hit.
Consider your shopping choices; say you are purchasing a tool, like a ratchet or screwdriver. There are all different grades of tools. You can buy 3/8 drive ratchets anywhere from $8 to $30 dollars. Low end ratchets of reasonable quality that aren't complete junk cost around $16, about half the cost of a top quality name brand which costs twice as much and is twice as good. If the cost of the low end was artificially increased 25% to say $20 instead of $16, with no requirement to raise the top end tool price you would probably consider spending the money on the high end product. It only costs 50% more and has twice the quality. The same thing happens with labor. Just like the high end tool will last longer and be more reliable than the top quality tool, why not spend a bit more and get a proven worker who can produce twice as much for less than twice the cost.
Historic data and economists agree, raising the minimum wage makes it harder for low skilled and entry level workers to find and keep jobs. It will result in more unemployment; and because there are a disproportionate number of minorities, especially blacks, who lack even a high school diploma, it will disproportionately hurt minority workers.
In examining more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, University of California Irvine economist David Neumark found that approximately 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers." Neumark says that the White House claim "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." His work matches with similar works in the past. A survey done in 1990 reported that 80 percent of economists agreed that increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth and low-skilled. 90 percent of members in American Economic Association agreed that increasing the minimum wage raises unemployment among young and unskilled workers, this from a survey as far back as 1976. Even most introduction to economics textbooks mention that increases to minimum wage result in increases in unemployment for low skilled and entry level workers.
The result of a 25% increase in the minimum wage will be higher costs and worse service. The cold hard fact is bagging groceries isn't worth $9/hr. So there won't be as many baggers (or other low skill entry jobs), and we will all end up with slower and poorer service because we can't afford to pay more for our groceries, and a $25% increase in labor costs will affect how many employees a grocery store can have and remain profitable.
Home Depot and other retailers have installed self checkout lanes, where 1 employee monitors 4-6 check-outs. Customers ring up and bag their own goods. This is the result of high minimum wages. One $10/hr person doing what could be the work of four $5/hr people. When was the last time you were at a grocery store, WalMart, etc. that had all the checkout lanes filled with cashiers, or even had enough employees so you didn't have to wait in line. Not always, but often enough to be bothersome there are lines even when the store is slow, the reason is because of the minimum wage.
The preponderance of evidence and expert opinion's agree that raising the minimum wage will hurt employment of those in most need. Of course this is a rational, logical, objective, and historic look at the minimum wage and its effects. As such the emotional call to make things better for the poorest workers will override the facts.
Obama has proposed a $9/hr minimum wage. That's a 25% increase over the current minimum wage. What do you think will happen if he gets his way? If you think poor people will be better off your wrong. What it will do is the same thing that happens to anything that has a 25% price increase, people will buy less of it. Economists agree raising the minimum wage would have a negative effect on low skilled workers. New and entry workers, aka low skilled workers, are those who earn the minimum. They will be the hardest hit.
Consider your shopping choices; say you are purchasing a tool, like a ratchet or screwdriver. There are all different grades of tools. You can buy 3/8 drive ratchets anywhere from $8 to $30 dollars. Low end ratchets of reasonable quality that aren't complete junk cost around $16, about half the cost of a top quality name brand which costs twice as much and is twice as good. If the cost of the low end was artificially increased 25% to say $20 instead of $16, with no requirement to raise the top end tool price you would probably consider spending the money on the high end product. It only costs 50% more and has twice the quality. The same thing happens with labor. Just like the high end tool will last longer and be more reliable than the top quality tool, why not spend a bit more and get a proven worker who can produce twice as much for less than twice the cost.
Historic data and economists agree, raising the minimum wage makes it harder for low skilled and entry level workers to find and keep jobs. It will result in more unemployment; and because there are a disproportionate number of minorities, especially blacks, who lack even a high school diploma, it will disproportionately hurt minority workers.
In examining more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, University of California Irvine economist David Neumark found that approximately 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers." Neumark says that the White House claim "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." His work matches with similar works in the past. A survey done in 1990 reported that 80 percent of economists agreed that increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth and low-skilled. 90 percent of members in American Economic Association agreed that increasing the minimum wage raises unemployment among young and unskilled workers, this from a survey as far back as 1976. Even most introduction to economics textbooks mention that increases to minimum wage result in increases in unemployment for low skilled and entry level workers.
The result of a 25% increase in the minimum wage will be higher costs and worse service. The cold hard fact is bagging groceries isn't worth $9/hr. So there won't be as many baggers (or other low skill entry jobs), and we will all end up with slower and poorer service because we can't afford to pay more for our groceries, and a $25% increase in labor costs will affect how many employees a grocery store can have and remain profitable.
Home Depot and other retailers have installed self checkout lanes, where 1 employee monitors 4-6 check-outs. Customers ring up and bag their own goods. This is the result of high minimum wages. One $10/hr person doing what could be the work of four $5/hr people. When was the last time you were at a grocery store, WalMart, etc. that had all the checkout lanes filled with cashiers, or even had enough employees so you didn't have to wait in line. Not always, but often enough to be bothersome there are lines even when the store is slow, the reason is because of the minimum wage.
The preponderance of evidence and expert opinion's agree that raising the minimum wage will hurt employment of those in most need. Of course this is a rational, logical, objective, and historic look at the minimum wage and its effects. As such the emotional call to make things better for the poorest workers will override the facts.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
If the Government Doesn't Do It Who Will?
By Tom Rhodes, 9/27/2012
Statists, mostly Democrats and Republicans work under the false assumption, a lie, that if the government doesn't do it, then nobody will. This is a lie, the people can and will do for themselves if the government would get just out of the way.
Consider emergency services like fire/rescue other first responders. Having well trained first responders in a community is necessary, but taxes and the government are not necessary for the people to have safe effective first responders in a community. Statists hate and work at eliminating where the people, not the government, take care of themselves. Right now Hillsborough county and its supporters in the leftist press are denigrating volunteer fire/rescue plans. This is a power grab not actually for the benefit of the citizens. It is trying to force a one-size-fits-all plan of government control on everybody.
The fact is at zero cost to the taxpayer and zero cost to patients in southern part of Hillsborough county basic life-support services are provided by the Sun City Center Emergency Squad. This all-volunteer organization is entirely supported by donations within the community and periodically by community grants. Let me repeat that, at NO COST TO TAXPAYERS OR PATIENTS.
It is a pure fiction that if the government doesn't provide a service that the service will not happen. Covering southern Hillsborough County, highly trained and licensed volunteers went on 6,100 emergency runs, all without billing a patient or taxpayers a single dime. To replace that free service to the community and patients, Hillsborough County would have sent over $4Million and charged each patient.
Even where effective zero cost to taxpayer systems are in place, statists want to eliminate that and institute "better" government provision of those services. They denigrate organizations like the Sun City Center Emergency Squad not because that organization is not doing a good job, but because it is a clear demonstration that we don't actually need the government for everything. Statists cannot allow actual real proof that private charity and the people can take care of themselves. The reality is that many, if not most, of government services could be supplied privately. The problem is control, statists want central control of public services, as it provides a means to control the masses. If the people can and do take care of themselves, it shows that the people don't "need" the government, but worse for statists it means that the government has less power, and less authority. Volunteer fire/rescue also puts more emphasis on local governments, not big county or state or federal agencies. Statists want more control in fewer hands, not distributed control subject to the will of the people.
The call to replace volunteers with "professionals" is not a call to provide better services, it is a call to take away local autonomy and centralize control and make people dependent upon the state not themselves. It should be rejected. The fact is if the government doesn't do it, we the people will; the 440 volunteers at the Sun City Center Emergency Squad are proof.
Statists, mostly Democrats and Republicans work under the false assumption, a lie, that if the government doesn't do it, then nobody will. This is a lie, the people can and will do for themselves if the government would get just out of the way.
Consider emergency services like fire/rescue other first responders. Having well trained first responders in a community is necessary, but taxes and the government are not necessary for the people to have safe effective first responders in a community. Statists hate and work at eliminating where the people, not the government, take care of themselves. Right now Hillsborough county and its supporters in the leftist press are denigrating volunteer fire/rescue plans. This is a power grab not actually for the benefit of the citizens. It is trying to force a one-size-fits-all plan of government control on everybody.
The fact is at zero cost to the taxpayer and zero cost to patients in southern part of Hillsborough county basic life-support services are provided by the Sun City Center Emergency Squad. This all-volunteer organization is entirely supported by donations within the community and periodically by community grants. Let me repeat that, at NO COST TO TAXPAYERS OR PATIENTS.
It is a pure fiction that if the government doesn't provide a service that the service will not happen. Covering southern Hillsborough County, highly trained and licensed volunteers went on 6,100 emergency runs, all without billing a patient or taxpayers a single dime. To replace that free service to the community and patients, Hillsborough County would have sent over $4Million and charged each patient.
Even where effective zero cost to taxpayer systems are in place, statists want to eliminate that and institute "better" government provision of those services. They denigrate organizations like the Sun City Center Emergency Squad not because that organization is not doing a good job, but because it is a clear demonstration that we don't actually need the government for everything. Statists cannot allow actual real proof that private charity and the people can take care of themselves. The reality is that many, if not most, of government services could be supplied privately. The problem is control, statists want central control of public services, as it provides a means to control the masses. If the people can and do take care of themselves, it shows that the people don't "need" the government, but worse for statists it means that the government has less power, and less authority. Volunteer fire/rescue also puts more emphasis on local governments, not big county or state or federal agencies. Statists want more control in fewer hands, not distributed control subject to the will of the people.
The call to replace volunteers with "professionals" is not a call to provide better services, it is a call to take away local autonomy and centralize control and make people dependent upon the state not themselves. It should be rejected. The fact is if the government doesn't do it, we the people will; the 440 volunteers at the Sun City Center Emergency Squad are proof.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Obama, Out of Touch with America and its Values
By Tom Rhodes, 6/13/2012
There is a American Middle Class value that Obama and liberals don't understand. It is fundamental idea of the middle class which those on the left have total contempt. The lack of understanding, and total contempt for the financial foundation of the middle class explains exactly why Obama and his administration is completely out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, the middle class; This is a libertarian value can best be summed up in the simple advice every middle class kid received from our parents, grandparents, etc. "Don't spend more than you earn, and always try to save some of what you earn." This is the entire basis and totally sums up Dave Ramsey and the empire he's created by simply offering this sage old advice over and over again.
Dave Ramsey, is a modern day version of Ben Franklin, and a purveyor of traditional middle class values. Virtually all his advice can be found in the writings of Franklin. What advice he gives, and what he writes is a rehash of Ben Franklin's The Way To Wealth, and is still viable today.
Ben Franklin believed that success was a consequent of hard work, diligence, and study. A self-made man, his own beginnings were unassuming, but he advanced through entrepreneurship and lifelong learning. He was always honest about who he was and how he came by his success. Like Obama, Ben Franklin started with humble beginnings and rose to greatness in American Politics. Unlike Obama his wisdom as withstood the test of time. The American middle class, who mostly lives in the suburbs not cities, has seen the failure of urban communitarian thinking and is going back to this simple advice that can be dated back to Ben Franklin and before. Over the past few years while the debt of our government has been exponentially climbing, the total private debt of the people has been declining. In effect the people are ignoring Obama, and following the advice of Dave Ramsey which is the advice of Ben Franklin, or grandparents and parents.
Ben Franklin said all of the below; these quotes reflect the Values of most Americans, and specifically the middle class; Obama's actions and words do not reflect the Values of most Americans and clearly are contrary to the wisdom of Ben Franklin:
"The second vice is lying, the first is running in debt"
"He that lives upon hope will die fasting"
"A penny saved is a penny earned"
"If you know how to spend less than you get, you have the philosopher's stone"
"If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some; for he that goes a-borrowing goes a-sorrowing"
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest"
"Rather go to bed without dinner than to rise in debt"
"When you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty"
"Disdain the chain, preserve your freedom; and maintain your independency: be industrious and free; be frugal and free"
"Early to bed, and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise"
"Diligence is the mother of good luck"
"God helps them that help themselves"
"Sloth, like rust, consumes faster than labor wears, while the used key is always bright"
"Lost time is never found again"
"He that riseth late, must trot all day, and shall scarce overtake his business at night"
"Drive thy business, let not that drive thee"
"Industry need not wish"
"There are no gains, without pains"
"Plough deep, while sluggards sleep, and you shall have corn to sell and to keep"
"Have you somewhat to do tomorrow, do it today"
"Be ashamed to catch yourself idle"
"At the working man's house hunger looks in, but dares not enter"
"For industry pays debts, while despair encreaseth them"
"By diligence and patience the mouse ate in two the cable"
"Little strokes fell great oaks"
"Employ thy time well if thou meanest to gain leisure"
"A life of leisure and a life of laziness are two things. Do you imagine that sloth will afford you more comfort than labor?"
"Trouble springs from idleness, and grievous toil from needless ease."
"Industry gives comfort, and plenty, and respect: fly pleasures, and they'll follow you"
"Keep the shop, and thy shop will keep thee"
"He that by the plough would thrive, Himself must either hold or drive."
"Want of care does us more damage than want of knowledge"
"In the affairs of this world men are saved not by faith, but by the want of it"
"Learning is to the studious, and riches to the careful, as well as power to the bold, and Heaven to the virtuous"
"Beware of little expenses; a small leak will sink a great ship"
"Buy what thou hast no need of, and before long thou shalt sell thy necessaries"
"Many estates are spent in the getting, Since women for tea forsook spinning and knitting, And men for punch forsook hewing and splitting."
"Think of saving as well as of getting: the Indies have not made Spain rich, because her outgoes are greater than her incomes"
"Women and wine, game and deceit, Make the wealth small, and the wants great."
"Wise men learn by others' harms, fools scarcely by their own"
"A ploughman on his legs is higher than a gentleman on his knees"
"When the well's dry, they know the worth of water"
"Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy"
"But what madness must it be to run in debt for these superfluities!"
"The borrower is a slave to the lender, and the debtor to the creditor"
This one is worth repeating, as it describes the current occupier of the White House
"The second vice is lying, the first is running in debt"
Since our government and we as a nation quit following these values and advice; it now takes $80 to buy what a single dollar used to buy; we are being dictated what products and services we must purchase; we are being told that the government should determine if you've made enough money; and our children will not have a better life than we did. The people of this country are again recognizing that the sage old advice we choose to ignore had value, and is the path to wealth and/or happiness. In Wisconsin, despite the best efforts of the left, Scott Walker showed that following Franklin's advice can and will work. The people of Wisconsin no longer have a budget in debt, have more not less employment, and have shown that even in a Democrat stronghold, logic, reason, and the self-evident truth of what Franklin preached are what Americans want. It is also a clear indication that Obama is totally out of touch with America and its values.
There is a American Middle Class value that Obama and liberals don't understand. It is fundamental idea of the middle class which those on the left have total contempt. The lack of understanding, and total contempt for the financial foundation of the middle class explains exactly why Obama and his administration is completely out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, the middle class; This is a libertarian value can best be summed up in the simple advice every middle class kid received from our parents, grandparents, etc. "Don't spend more than you earn, and always try to save some of what you earn." This is the entire basis and totally sums up Dave Ramsey and the empire he's created by simply offering this sage old advice over and over again.
Dave Ramsey, is a modern day version of Ben Franklin, and a purveyor of traditional middle class values. Virtually all his advice can be found in the writings of Franklin. What advice he gives, and what he writes is a rehash of Ben Franklin's The Way To Wealth, and is still viable today.
Ben Franklin believed that success was a consequent of hard work, diligence, and study. A self-made man, his own beginnings were unassuming, but he advanced through entrepreneurship and lifelong learning. He was always honest about who he was and how he came by his success. Like Obama, Ben Franklin started with humble beginnings and rose to greatness in American Politics. Unlike Obama his wisdom as withstood the test of time. The American middle class, who mostly lives in the suburbs not cities, has seen the failure of urban communitarian thinking and is going back to this simple advice that can be dated back to Ben Franklin and before. Over the past few years while the debt of our government has been exponentially climbing, the total private debt of the people has been declining. In effect the people are ignoring Obama, and following the advice of Dave Ramsey which is the advice of Ben Franklin, or grandparents and parents.
Ben Franklin said all of the below; these quotes reflect the Values of most Americans, and specifically the middle class; Obama's actions and words do not reflect the Values of most Americans and clearly are contrary to the wisdom of Ben Franklin:
This one is worth repeating, as it describes the current occupier of the White House
Since our government and we as a nation quit following these values and advice; it now takes $80 to buy what a single dollar used to buy; we are being dictated what products and services we must purchase; we are being told that the government should determine if you've made enough money; and our children will not have a better life than we did. The people of this country are again recognizing that the sage old advice we choose to ignore had value, and is the path to wealth and/or happiness. In Wisconsin, despite the best efforts of the left, Scott Walker showed that following Franklin's advice can and will work. The people of Wisconsin no longer have a budget in debt, have more not less employment, and have shown that even in a Democrat stronghold, logic, reason, and the self-evident truth of what Franklin preached are what Americans want. It is also a clear indication that Obama is totally out of touch with America and its values.
Monday, May 14, 2012
It’s Time For Libertarian Economics
We have had 30 years of Democrat economics and Republican economics. Both have been different faces of the same scam, and it’s time for a change.
There has in fact been no real economic expansion since 1980. Not one three month period has elapsed where the economy expanded faster than did total debt from 1981 to 2009. From 2002-2008 the amount of true inflation, measured against the increase in earnings of the population, averaged nearly 10% a year. Compounded over six years this is enough to destroy 75% of your purchasing power.
That’s the truth from a monetary perspective. It’s why we “needed” an Internet and housing bubble -- so you didn’t immediately starve, riot and put a stop to the scams. You, the common person, were played as a rube for the benefit of a tiny fraction of the population in Washington DC and on Wall Street.
2007 and 2008 laid the facts bare; the economy and markets collapsed as the ability of individuals to borrow more and more money came to an end. The economy has not recovered -- over the last year on a population-adjusted basis we have in fact lost 1.3 million jobs; 6 million jobs have vanished since the alleged “recovery” began in the summer of 2009.
Government cannot provide what you are not willing to pay for in the form of taxes here and now. Anything else is economically unstable just as it is if you lose your job and then run up your VISA card to pretend you still have an income.
Libertarians believe that the initiation of force -- including fraud -- is always wrong. Whether that force comes via fraudulent claims made by companies selling stock, crooked appraisals and mortgage deals, robosigned documents in foreclosures, offshoring your job while repressing people in slave labor and destroying their environment or laws allowing certain firms to charge 1,000% more for a drug here than in Canada, it’s unacceptable. When government promises benefits it knows it cannot pay for, including Medicare and public-sector pensions, that’s theft from you and your children. Today, government fraud -- borrowing with no ability or intent to pay, ever -- is a full 10% of the economy and has been for the last four years.
Economic prosperity requires a stable currency and honesty between government and the people, in which the services people want are paid for with current taxes. This is the essence of a balanced budget. It begins with recognition that government inflation of the economy by 10% every year and effective counterfeiting of the dollar by banks and The Fed issuing un-backed credit are mathematically unsound.
Only Libertarians are willing to bring this discussion to the public. We’re the third-largest political party and the only one with answers that will prevent economic Armageddon. That resolution will not come without pain, just as ceasing drinking requires that you deal with the hangover, but if the alternative is liver cancer and death isn’t the hangover a better option?
Karl Denninger is a former CEO in the Internet space, a popular economic blogger who operates The Market Ticker (http://market-ticker.org) an at-large Executive Committee member of the Libertarian Party of Florida and Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Okaloosa County. The opinions expressed are his own.
Karl Denninger
The Market Ticker ®
Cuda Systems LLC
314 Olde Post Road
Niceville FL 32578
karl@denninger.net
850- 376-9364
There has in fact been no real economic expansion since 1980. Not one three month period has elapsed where the economy expanded faster than did total debt from 1981 to 2009. From 2002-2008 the amount of true inflation, measured against the increase in earnings of the population, averaged nearly 10% a year. Compounded over six years this is enough to destroy 75% of your purchasing power.
That’s the truth from a monetary perspective. It’s why we “needed” an Internet and housing bubble -- so you didn’t immediately starve, riot and put a stop to the scams. You, the common person, were played as a rube for the benefit of a tiny fraction of the population in Washington DC and on Wall Street.
2007 and 2008 laid the facts bare; the economy and markets collapsed as the ability of individuals to borrow more and more money came to an end. The economy has not recovered -- over the last year on a population-adjusted basis we have in fact lost 1.3 million jobs; 6 million jobs have vanished since the alleged “recovery” began in the summer of 2009.
Government cannot provide what you are not willing to pay for in the form of taxes here and now. Anything else is economically unstable just as it is if you lose your job and then run up your VISA card to pretend you still have an income.
Libertarians believe that the initiation of force -- including fraud -- is always wrong. Whether that force comes via fraudulent claims made by companies selling stock, crooked appraisals and mortgage deals, robosigned documents in foreclosures, offshoring your job while repressing people in slave labor and destroying their environment or laws allowing certain firms to charge 1,000% more for a drug here than in Canada, it’s unacceptable. When government promises benefits it knows it cannot pay for, including Medicare and public-sector pensions, that’s theft from you and your children. Today, government fraud -- borrowing with no ability or intent to pay, ever -- is a full 10% of the economy and has been for the last four years.
Economic prosperity requires a stable currency and honesty between government and the people, in which the services people want are paid for with current taxes. This is the essence of a balanced budget. It begins with recognition that government inflation of the economy by 10% every year and effective counterfeiting of the dollar by banks and The Fed issuing un-backed credit are mathematically unsound.
Only Libertarians are willing to bring this discussion to the public. We’re the third-largest political party and the only one with answers that will prevent economic Armageddon. That resolution will not come without pain, just as ceasing drinking requires that you deal with the hangover, but if the alternative is liver cancer and death isn’t the hangover a better option?
Karl Denninger is a former CEO in the Internet space, a popular economic blogger who operates The Market Ticker (http://market-ticker.org) an at-large Executive Committee member of the Libertarian Party of Florida and Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Okaloosa County. The opinions expressed are his own.
Karl Denninger
The Market Ticker ®
Cuda Systems LLC
314 Olde Post Road
Niceville FL 32578
karl@denninger.net
850- 376-9364
Thursday, May 10, 2012
New York Town Implements Libertarian Taxing Strategy
By Tom Rhodes 5/10/2012
New Rochelle N.Y., looking at decreased revenue and increased costs, like many US towns is strapped for cash. Being responsible to its citizens and recognizing that they have limited funds, in their 2012 budget New Rochelle eliminated some of their towns holiday celebrations including their Fourth of July Fireworks, their Memorial Day and Thanksgiving Parades. Although these civic events are very important they took the responsible action.
Canceling these events saves the citizens of New Rochelle $135,000. Such austerity measures are hard to accept for many people, and the city of New Rochelle wants to put these events on for its businesses, citizens, and community. So rather than raise taxes or borrow money, they have asked for citizens for VOLUNTARILY support (tax themselves) to pay for these traditional holiday celebrations.
So far these targeted donations have covered the cost of the Memorial Day parade, and it looks like donations will also cover the Thanksgiving parade. These Parades cost $30,000 each. It doesn't look like they will collect enough to put on the July 4th Fireworks, at $75,000 it is a substantial cost.
New Rochelle Mayor, Noam Bramson, said New Rochelle is in a "time of fiscal challenge" and depends on the support of donations to help out. What an awesome position for a town to take, that it can and does depend upon its citizens and business community to make the right decisions about what the town can and can't do. No, it hasn't eliminated property taxes, but it is a huge step in the right direction. A town recognizing that it governs and provides services at the consent of the governed, including "depending" upon citizen and local businesses to support for such actions as parades, fireworks, etc. is the reality of implementing of libertarian ideology.
If you want to support a town calling for truly voluntary not forced taxation, for the communities luxuries you can donate by calling 914-654-2087.
New Rochelle N.Y., looking at decreased revenue and increased costs, like many US towns is strapped for cash. Being responsible to its citizens and recognizing that they have limited funds, in their 2012 budget New Rochelle eliminated some of their towns holiday celebrations including their Fourth of July Fireworks, their Memorial Day and Thanksgiving Parades. Although these civic events are very important they took the responsible action.
Canceling these events saves the citizens of New Rochelle $135,000. Such austerity measures are hard to accept for many people, and the city of New Rochelle wants to put these events on for its businesses, citizens, and community. So rather than raise taxes or borrow money, they have asked for citizens for VOLUNTARILY support (tax themselves) to pay for these traditional holiday celebrations.
So far these targeted donations have covered the cost of the Memorial Day parade, and it looks like donations will also cover the Thanksgiving parade. These Parades cost $30,000 each. It doesn't look like they will collect enough to put on the July 4th Fireworks, at $75,000 it is a substantial cost.
New Rochelle Mayor, Noam Bramson, said New Rochelle is in a "time of fiscal challenge" and depends on the support of donations to help out. What an awesome position for a town to take, that it can and does depend upon its citizens and business community to make the right decisions about what the town can and can't do. No, it hasn't eliminated property taxes, but it is a huge step in the right direction. A town recognizing that it governs and provides services at the consent of the governed, including "depending" upon citizen and local businesses to support for such actions as parades, fireworks, etc. is the reality of implementing of libertarian ideology.
If you want to support a town calling for truly voluntary not forced taxation, for the communities luxuries you can donate by calling 914-654-2087.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Passing the Buck - Obama Refuses to Own the Consequences of his Actions.
By Tom Rhodes, 2/19/2012
Harry S. Truman famously took ownership for problems and issues coining the phrase "the buck stops here." Our current President is becoming infamous for blame shifting and refusing to own any of the problems he created, or positions he took prior to being elected. In 2008 when talking about high gas prices, Obama said that he "would have preferred a gradual adjustment." As president that is exactly what he got a gradual adjustment to higher gas prices. He appointed people who publicly proclaimed to want European $8-$10 per gallon prices for the USA to head the energy department. Why does the liberal press want us to believe that Obama hasn't taken actions to get exactly the results which he said he wanted? High gas prices to force the US population to quit using cars. That was one of his stated positions prior to being president.
Obama has and is manipulating gas prices to reach his stated and desired position, but unlike President Harry S. Truman, Obama is clearly trying to "pass the buck," telling Fox News, "You think the president of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher? Is that-is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?"
It does make a lot of since, especially when you look at his pre-president statements and actual actions as president. Just consider where he directs the DOE to spend money. In a blatant bit of insider trading the Washington Post reported that the Obama "administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms. ... $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers." - Now do your best Mr. Rogers imitation - Can you say "Solyndra," I thought you could; the result of that one action was half a billion bucks to Obama cronies and a loss of over 1,000 jobs. If Bush had done the same things that Obama did the press would be having a field day.
Obama's actions keep the technology associated with alternatives to Oil prohibitively expensive. As I've noted before high-tech requires rare-earth elements. EPA regulations (not laws) have made mining of rare-earth elements cost prohibitive in the USA. China produces 97% of the rare earth elements, and is using its corner on the market to keep prices high. Obama is trying to use China as a scapegoat, filing a legal case against them for "hoarding" rare-earth elements. The New York Times quotes Obama as saying, "We want our companies right here in America. But to do that, American manufacturers need to have access to rare earth materials." This begs some questions: What moral or legal obligation does China have to export its raw materials at low prices to countries which refuse to mine their own resources for the same? Why is it illegal and immoral to import raw materials like rose wood and ebony to manufacture guitar parts in the USA, but vital that China export its raw materials to make wind mills in the USA. China, acting like a sensible owner of its own resources, is fully within its rights to keep its resources for use within China. They have no obligation to supply raw materials to others, especially when they can add value to those materials and sell finished products. China has no more culpability for an American shortage of rare earth elements than Brazil has for Libya's lack of rain.
The State department says the Keystone XL pipeline is safe (on two different occasions), the 21,000 miles of similar pipelines that crisscross the country from Wyoming to Louisiana are a good indication that it's safe; but rather than allow private business to expand on a proven method that will supply tens of thousands of jobs and 700K barrels of crude oil daily, Obama shut it down. That is a significant impact on oil futures, and gasoline prices.
Overall Obama has kept total US oil production down; actual new drilling where it can be most productive has not increased. At the same time his foreign policy has kept the Middle East stirred up. Minimally this is keeping crude oil markets insecure. This significant uncertainty in the market drives speculators to bump up the cost of oil. Keeping US oil production stagnant and unrest in oil-rich countries forces a premium on every barrel of oil.
So do we take Obama at his pre-presidency word, wanting high gasoline prices, or believe that he now says that he's working to keep gas prices down. The truth is we have seen a steady increase in gas prices under Obama, as he said he wanted. His actions exacerbate not help uncertainty in fuel markets. His attempted socialism of clean-tech results in graft, and keeps solar, wind etc. unaffordable for the masses. His actions just reward his cronies with tax dollars, and he thinks that's just fine and dandy. Even the car Government Motors produces, the Volt, is dependent upon foreign materials and high prices, thus a car nobody wants, and can't afford. No rational person could conclude that Obama is not at least indirectly responsible for high gas prices. Obama refusing to take ownership of the consequences of his actions is not the hallmark of a leader, but instead is the mark of a power hungry political weasel, willing to say or do anything to keep power.
He ran on wanting energy to be expensive, saying electricity prices would have to "skyrocket"; he appointed people to be in-charge of the Dept. of Energy who wanted energy to be expensive; the results of his actions over the past 3 years is that gasoline now costs well more than double what it did when he took office, and making electricity is getting more and more expensive. These are exactly the results he wanted, and told anybody who bothered to listen that he wanted. Why now is he trying to tell the American People that he's not responsible for the price of gasoline?
Harry S. Truman famously took ownership for problems and issues coining the phrase "the buck stops here." Our current President is becoming infamous for blame shifting and refusing to own any of the problems he created, or positions he took prior to being elected. In 2008 when talking about high gas prices, Obama said that he "would have preferred a gradual adjustment." As president that is exactly what he got a gradual adjustment to higher gas prices. He appointed people who publicly proclaimed to want European $8-$10 per gallon prices for the USA to head the energy department. Why does the liberal press want us to believe that Obama hasn't taken actions to get exactly the results which he said he wanted? High gas prices to force the US population to quit using cars. That was one of his stated positions prior to being president.
Obama has and is manipulating gas prices to reach his stated and desired position, but unlike President Harry S. Truman, Obama is clearly trying to "pass the buck," telling Fox News, "You think the president of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher? Is that-is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?"
It does make a lot of since, especially when you look at his pre-president statements and actual actions as president. Just consider where he directs the DOE to spend money. In a blatant bit of insider trading the Washington Post reported that the Obama "administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms. ... $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers." - Now do your best Mr. Rogers imitation - Can you say "Solyndra," I thought you could; the result of that one action was half a billion bucks to Obama cronies and a loss of over 1,000 jobs. If Bush had done the same things that Obama did the press would be having a field day.
Obama's actions keep the technology associated with alternatives to Oil prohibitively expensive. As I've noted before high-tech requires rare-earth elements. EPA regulations (not laws) have made mining of rare-earth elements cost prohibitive in the USA. China produces 97% of the rare earth elements, and is using its corner on the market to keep prices high. Obama is trying to use China as a scapegoat, filing a legal case against them for "hoarding" rare-earth elements. The New York Times quotes Obama as saying, "We want our companies right here in America. But to do that, American manufacturers need to have access to rare earth materials." This begs some questions: What moral or legal obligation does China have to export its raw materials at low prices to countries which refuse to mine their own resources for the same? Why is it illegal and immoral to import raw materials like rose wood and ebony to manufacture guitar parts in the USA, but vital that China export its raw materials to make wind mills in the USA. China, acting like a sensible owner of its own resources, is fully within its rights to keep its resources for use within China. They have no obligation to supply raw materials to others, especially when they can add value to those materials and sell finished products. China has no more culpability for an American shortage of rare earth elements than Brazil has for Libya's lack of rain.
The State department says the Keystone XL pipeline is safe (on two different occasions), the 21,000 miles of similar pipelines that crisscross the country from Wyoming to Louisiana are a good indication that it's safe; but rather than allow private business to expand on a proven method that will supply tens of thousands of jobs and 700K barrels of crude oil daily, Obama shut it down. That is a significant impact on oil futures, and gasoline prices.
Overall Obama has kept total US oil production down; actual new drilling where it can be most productive has not increased. At the same time his foreign policy has kept the Middle East stirred up. Minimally this is keeping crude oil markets insecure. This significant uncertainty in the market drives speculators to bump up the cost of oil. Keeping US oil production stagnant and unrest in oil-rich countries forces a premium on every barrel of oil.
So do we take Obama at his pre-presidency word, wanting high gasoline prices, or believe that he now says that he's working to keep gas prices down. The truth is we have seen a steady increase in gas prices under Obama, as he said he wanted. His actions exacerbate not help uncertainty in fuel markets. His attempted socialism of clean-tech results in graft, and keeps solar, wind etc. unaffordable for the masses. His actions just reward his cronies with tax dollars, and he thinks that's just fine and dandy. Even the car Government Motors produces, the Volt, is dependent upon foreign materials and high prices, thus a car nobody wants, and can't afford. No rational person could conclude that Obama is not at least indirectly responsible for high gas prices. Obama refusing to take ownership of the consequences of his actions is not the hallmark of a leader, but instead is the mark of a power hungry political weasel, willing to say or do anything to keep power.
He ran on wanting energy to be expensive, saying electricity prices would have to "skyrocket"; he appointed people to be in-charge of the Dept. of Energy who wanted energy to be expensive; the results of his actions over the past 3 years is that gasoline now costs well more than double what it did when he took office, and making electricity is getting more and more expensive. These are exactly the results he wanted, and told anybody who bothered to listen that he wanted. Why now is he trying to tell the American People that he's not responsible for the price of gasoline?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Where is the Law?
By Tom Rhodes 2/14/2012
Last year the IRS created new crony regulation to protect big business. This should come as no surprise. Congress never authorized, nor grated the authority, nor created any law that allows the IRS to require third party tax preparers to get an IRS license; period! The IRS just magically decided that it has the authority, far in excess of any authority Congress deligated.
This is a new rule, not law, that H&R Block and other big tax companies that can lobby government love, they didn't even bother with a law. It's pure big-business protectionism. The Wall Street Journal simply explained it saying; "Cheering the new regulations are big tax preparers like H&R Block, who are only too happy to see the feds swoop in to put their mom-and-pop seasonal competitors out of business."
A friend of mine every year purchases the full blown version of Quicken's Turbo Tax, does his families taxes, and does taxes for a few of his senior citizen neighbors who don't have a computer and are troubled with the complexity of modern IRS rules and regulations. He charges $25 bucks and if the tax return is more complicated than his $39 software program can handle, he doesn't charge and tells the person to find an accountant. He helps out about a dozen people every year. Not a big money maker, but as a school teacher in a rural county, it helps out. The IRS wants to make this illegal, the only logical reason is to help out H&R Block, not protect the average tax payer. Since the IRS requires third party preparers to sign tax forms, it's easy for them to track people who abuse the tax code, etc. The arguments requiring a license to protect taxpayers are false. It is just another government power and money grab.
Without law, this new regulation is typical big government cronyism protecting favored businesses. This regulation benefits only powerful industry insiders and at the expense of mom and pop business and consumers. The result will be less competition, fewer options for tax payers, and higher prices. People, including tax preparer's right to earn a living without government permission from the IRS are being curtailed. Tax payers, not the government, should be the ones who decide who, if anybody, helps them prepare their taxes. Soon you won't even be allowed to do your own taxes, you'll have to have a "licensed" tax preparer prepare your taxes.
The good news is that yesterday, the Institute for Justice and several independent tax preparers filed suit against the IRS challenging its authority to impose a licensing scheme. The Institute for Justice estimates that this will affect about 350,000 tax return preparers
The Wall Street Journal reports that IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said, "In most states you need a license to cut someone's hair." as the rationale for inventing a new licensing scheme. Using abusive licensing regulations, which limit competition, as justification for more licensing regulations, is absurd. This like the massive amounts of new regulations Obama has instituted is killing economic growth.
This is just another example of the Obama administration doing an end run around congress, legislating without the legislature. It is just another method for Obama and Co. to generate revenue through administrative fiat, rather than through the constitutional process. Over the past century we have done well without needing a license from the IRS to do our taxes; there has not been a huge amount of tax fraud by independent tax preparers not associated with big business like H&R Block; so why the need, and if there is a need why bypass the normal legislative process? Why does Obama want to control yet another part of private business, and grant still more power to corporations? Could it be they want control of how taxpayers use legal deductions to minimize their taxes? If it's tax abuse which they are worried about why not drastically simplify the tax code as promised?
The Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination is the examination administered to people who wish to become Certified Public Accountants (CPA's). This exam is developed and maintained by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), and is administered by the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA). Although the CPA exam is used by the regulatory bodies of all fifty states it is a private certifying body. People should be free to choose to use a CPA to prepare their taxes if they wish. They should also be free to have somebody who is not "certified" prepare their taxes so long as the preparer is open and honest about their qualifications. The need for a government license is redundant and not necessary. The government's sole role should be to protect individuals from those who would fraudulent claim to have qualifications they don't, not to require individuals to use "certified" individuals for services. Although I may want to use an ASCE certified mechanic, there isn't nor should be a law requiring I use one to repair my auto. If I want to hire the neighborhood shade tree mechanic, that should be between me and him, so long as doesn't dishonestly lie about his credentials.
This should apply to Doctors, Lawyers, Barbers, etc. private board certifications should be recommended, but so long as people are honest about their qualifications, people should be free to trade goods and services without government interference. Why shouldn't a marine corpsman with years of experience doing battle field wound care, stitching up soldiers in the field and treating emergency wounds of all types, not be allowed to offer those services to the public when he returns and is discharged from the military. I'd just as soon pay a veteran corpsman to sew up my arm after a home accident, than pay outrageous hospital ER prices. Provided he's honest about his training and experience, he should be allowed to compete with other health care providers, letting the consumer of health care services make the choice between AMA certified doctor or experienced US Marine corpsman or local witchdoctor. This of course would end the AMA monopoly, and put a severe ding in the monopoly on health care that has proven to drive prices through the roof. All occupational licenses are just scheme's to protect entrenched guilds, not truly protect the consumer. Imagine having to have a license to tell somebody what lamp or color would look best in your house, an interior design license, but that is exactly what the existing entrenched interior designers want, protection from the completion of startup designers. Corporate cronyism, not real consumer protection, is what licensing is about. H&R Block wants the IRS tax preparer license, because it protects their business, and will allow them to charge more.
Constitutionally we have a system of checks and balances that separates government power designed to make it difficult for the federal government to enact laws restricting the liberty of the people, and specifically designating what powers the federal government has, and what powers each branch of government has. Obama has made it clear that he does not like the constitutional restrictions which limit his ability to get laws he wants. Laws do not come from one single man in the President, they must come from the legislature, and revenue generating laws must originate in the House. IRS licenses will generate revenue for the IRS, thus laws granting that authority must originate in the House of Representatives, not the IRS bureaucracy. What constitutional authority does the federal government have to institute occupational licenses? From Doctors to CPA's to Lawyers, to Barbers, all occupational licensing has always been thepurview of the States. Clearly the federal government has no constitutional authority to create a law licensing tax preparers, and bypassing congress to create such a "rule" is clearly unconstitutional on many grounds.
The Obama administration unmistakably considers the rule of law and any constitutional limits on the power of the Executive branch to be passé, defunct, outdated, outmoded, null and void. Lucky for Obama the people of the USA have become a passive nation of cowards unwilling to stand up to tyranny. Unlucky for Obama is the fact that the morals of the people are also vanishing, and we are seeing and soon will see even more massive amounts of people just ignoring the law. Once the government has shown that it is not obligated to follow the rules set forth in the constitution, the people are no longer obligated to follow the "rules" set forth by such a government. This year despite the new IRS "rule," my friend is still preparing taxes for seniors without official approval by the government, he just does so illegally using internet based tax programs from a computer at public library as if he were the senior preparing their own taxes, and instead of declaring that income on his taxes is insisting on cash. Any moral obligation to follow the law is no longer valid because the government has publicly and officially said that it is no longer under any obligation to do the same. The prima facie moral obligation to follow the IRS "rule" is superseded by the right of all individuals to work and be compensated for their labor. You don't nor should you ever, have to gain permission from some lord or master to work for yourself or another.
RIP: Rule of Law, slain by B.H. Obama 2012.
Last year the IRS created new crony regulation to protect big business. This should come as no surprise. Congress never authorized, nor grated the authority, nor created any law that allows the IRS to require third party tax preparers to get an IRS license; period! The IRS just magically decided that it has the authority, far in excess of any authority Congress deligated.
This is a new rule, not law, that H&R Block and other big tax companies that can lobby government love, they didn't even bother with a law. It's pure big-business protectionism. The Wall Street Journal simply explained it saying; "Cheering the new regulations are big tax preparers like H&R Block, who are only too happy to see the feds swoop in to put their mom-and-pop seasonal competitors out of business."
A friend of mine every year purchases the full blown version of Quicken's Turbo Tax, does his families taxes, and does taxes for a few of his senior citizen neighbors who don't have a computer and are troubled with the complexity of modern IRS rules and regulations. He charges $25 bucks and if the tax return is more complicated than his $39 software program can handle, he doesn't charge and tells the person to find an accountant. He helps out about a dozen people every year. Not a big money maker, but as a school teacher in a rural county, it helps out. The IRS wants to make this illegal, the only logical reason is to help out H&R Block, not protect the average tax payer. Since the IRS requires third party preparers to sign tax forms, it's easy for them to track people who abuse the tax code, etc. The arguments requiring a license to protect taxpayers are false. It is just another government power and money grab.
Without law, this new regulation is typical big government cronyism protecting favored businesses. This regulation benefits only powerful industry insiders and at the expense of mom and pop business and consumers. The result will be less competition, fewer options for tax payers, and higher prices. People, including tax preparer's right to earn a living without government permission from the IRS are being curtailed. Tax payers, not the government, should be the ones who decide who, if anybody, helps them prepare their taxes. Soon you won't even be allowed to do your own taxes, you'll have to have a "licensed" tax preparer prepare your taxes.
The good news is that yesterday, the Institute for Justice and several independent tax preparers filed suit against the IRS challenging its authority to impose a licensing scheme. The Institute for Justice estimates that this will affect about 350,000 tax return preparers
The Wall Street Journal reports that IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said, "In most states you need a license to cut someone's hair." as the rationale for inventing a new licensing scheme. Using abusive licensing regulations, which limit competition, as justification for more licensing regulations, is absurd. This like the massive amounts of new regulations Obama has instituted is killing economic growth.
This is just another example of the Obama administration doing an end run around congress, legislating without the legislature. It is just another method for Obama and Co. to generate revenue through administrative fiat, rather than through the constitutional process. Over the past century we have done well without needing a license from the IRS to do our taxes; there has not been a huge amount of tax fraud by independent tax preparers not associated with big business like H&R Block; so why the need, and if there is a need why bypass the normal legislative process? Why does Obama want to control yet another part of private business, and grant still more power to corporations? Could it be they want control of how taxpayers use legal deductions to minimize their taxes? If it's tax abuse which they are worried about why not drastically simplify the tax code as promised?
The Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination is the examination administered to people who wish to become Certified Public Accountants (CPA's). This exam is developed and maintained by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), and is administered by the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA). Although the CPA exam is used by the regulatory bodies of all fifty states it is a private certifying body. People should be free to choose to use a CPA to prepare their taxes if they wish. They should also be free to have somebody who is not "certified" prepare their taxes so long as the preparer is open and honest about their qualifications. The need for a government license is redundant and not necessary. The government's sole role should be to protect individuals from those who would fraudulent claim to have qualifications they don't, not to require individuals to use "certified" individuals for services. Although I may want to use an ASCE certified mechanic, there isn't nor should be a law requiring I use one to repair my auto. If I want to hire the neighborhood shade tree mechanic, that should be between me and him, so long as doesn't dishonestly lie about his credentials.
This should apply to Doctors, Lawyers, Barbers, etc. private board certifications should be recommended, but so long as people are honest about their qualifications, people should be free to trade goods and services without government interference. Why shouldn't a marine corpsman with years of experience doing battle field wound care, stitching up soldiers in the field and treating emergency wounds of all types, not be allowed to offer those services to the public when he returns and is discharged from the military. I'd just as soon pay a veteran corpsman to sew up my arm after a home accident, than pay outrageous hospital ER prices. Provided he's honest about his training and experience, he should be allowed to compete with other health care providers, letting the consumer of health care services make the choice between AMA certified doctor or experienced US Marine corpsman or local witchdoctor. This of course would end the AMA monopoly, and put a severe ding in the monopoly on health care that has proven to drive prices through the roof. All occupational licenses are just scheme's to protect entrenched guilds, not truly protect the consumer. Imagine having to have a license to tell somebody what lamp or color would look best in your house, an interior design license, but that is exactly what the existing entrenched interior designers want, protection from the completion of startup designers. Corporate cronyism, not real consumer protection, is what licensing is about. H&R Block wants the IRS tax preparer license, because it protects their business, and will allow them to charge more.
Constitutionally we have a system of checks and balances that separates government power designed to make it difficult for the federal government to enact laws restricting the liberty of the people, and specifically designating what powers the federal government has, and what powers each branch of government has. Obama has made it clear that he does not like the constitutional restrictions which limit his ability to get laws he wants. Laws do not come from one single man in the President, they must come from the legislature, and revenue generating laws must originate in the House. IRS licenses will generate revenue for the IRS, thus laws granting that authority must originate in the House of Representatives, not the IRS bureaucracy. What constitutional authority does the federal government have to institute occupational licenses? From Doctors to CPA's to Lawyers, to Barbers, all occupational licensing has always been thepurview of the States. Clearly the federal government has no constitutional authority to create a law licensing tax preparers, and bypassing congress to create such a "rule" is clearly unconstitutional on many grounds.
The Obama administration unmistakably considers the rule of law and any constitutional limits on the power of the Executive branch to be passé, defunct, outdated, outmoded, null and void. Lucky for Obama the people of the USA have become a passive nation of cowards unwilling to stand up to tyranny. Unlucky for Obama is the fact that the morals of the people are also vanishing, and we are seeing and soon will see even more massive amounts of people just ignoring the law. Once the government has shown that it is not obligated to follow the rules set forth in the constitution, the people are no longer obligated to follow the "rules" set forth by such a government. This year despite the new IRS "rule," my friend is still preparing taxes for seniors without official approval by the government, he just does so illegally using internet based tax programs from a computer at public library as if he were the senior preparing their own taxes, and instead of declaring that income on his taxes is insisting on cash. Any moral obligation to follow the law is no longer valid because the government has publicly and officially said that it is no longer under any obligation to do the same. The prima facie moral obligation to follow the IRS "rule" is superseded by the right of all individuals to work and be compensated for their labor. You don't nor should you ever, have to gain permission from some lord or master to work for yourself or another.
RIP: Rule of Law, slain by B.H. Obama 2012.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Any Questions?
By Tom Rhodes 2/27/2012
Liberals tout the seasonally adjusted employment numbers being improved as proof of the success of government economic stimuli. They conveniently ignore the fact that many more millions of people are "permanently" out of work so are no longer counted as unemployed, than there have been new jobs created. The fact is that the government "adjusts" the numbers to send the correct political message. The simple fact is that we have more people living in the USA than we did when Obama took office, and the total number of people employed is significantly lower. That is not job growth, Period. The method the government uses to count employment, etc. are continuously changed to reflect the political message the government wants to portray. If you want real numbers and an honest comparison look at the numbers and data from John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics. The basic problem we have is not that there isn't enough government stimuli but that the ruling elite are addicts. They are addicted to spending money they don't have.
What is needed is solid foundational jobs, production, and consumption based on real economic availability and demand. Artificial demand won't increase availability, nor entice those who produce to produce more.
People have been taking and using artificial stimulants longer than we have been recording history. Whether it be cocoa leaves or cocaine, coffee or amphetamines, drugs to keep energy levels unnaturally high have been used by people forever. They are not bad in and of themselves, a temporary stimulus to complete a task is not a bad thing, provided you don't continuously use them in place of food or sleep.
Consider cocaine, it can give you a short-term boost, but it can also cause your hart to race so intensely that it explodes. There is no nutritional value to artificial stimulants. They just accelerate the consumption of energy reserves that your body would not normally use if left to natural metabolic mechanisms. It does not create those reserves; replenish those reserves; sustain those reserves; it just uses them up. To be health you need normal amounts of food and sleep. When stimulants wear off, you either crash or take more. The long term effects are usually very bad, a wasted withered body that needs slow long term, and costly, recovery, or worse yet death. Nobody would claim or accept that being strung out on coke or amphetamines is healthy, wise, or effective way to live.
Economic stimulus doesn't work for the same reason. Economic stimulus is based on the same kind of thinking people who use drugs to stimulate their bodies for a prolonged time. It's based on a completely wrong notion of what spurs prosperity.
Liberals are now using a short time span graph, to illustrate that new European austerity programs (actually the ending of artificial stimulants to the economy), are actually hurting their economy. Have you ever seen a drug addict and what happens when the drugs are cut off whether by benevolent hospitalization, or by self-induced privation? They don't look or feel good, in fact for a period of time it is much harder and worse for them than if they had stayed on the drugs. Would anybody argue that the short term hardship, pain, and misery the drug addict suffers during rehabilitation is worse than continued drug dependence, which inevitably leads to self destruction.
Government stimulus through deficit spending does the same thing for the economy that stimulants do for the body. It takes value-added production that serves markets that want the goods and are able to purchase them to maintain real healthy and sustainable economic growth. When for various reasons not enough of that is happening, economic growth will slow or regress for a short period of time. Nobody enjoys that period of time, but necessary corrections are a necessity from time to time.
We sometimes refer to the economy as an engine. Adding nitrous-oxide and a performance exhaust to a car engine that has leaky valve or two may give that weakening engine temporarily power boost, but will also lead to far greater damage taking a far longer downtime to recover from needing to totally rebuild the engine than if the time was taken to do the more minor head work.
Drink too much on New Year 's Eve and you have a hangover New Year's Day. You can avoid that hangover if you stay drunk. Eventually you have to sober up, failing to do so is self destructive. The government is replacing the value-added, market-serving production that generates true economic growth with the superfluous spreading of borrowed money. Just like staying drunk to avoid a hangover, it doesn't work.
Not only our economy but the world's economy is past the point where a small temporary stimulus will provide an energy boost to get over the hump. Our federal government can "stimulate" our economy back to health. That's why Bush's TARP, and Obama's $862 billion stimulus were both boondoggles. Effective and lasting economic health will not return until we release the productive sector of the economy. The productive sector of our economy is the business sector, investing, taking risk, and succeeding and failing based on how they serve the people. The government needs to quit trying to pick economic winners and losers; to get out of the way of energy production; to cut taxes on businesses and individuals; and to stop treating everyone who earns a profit like a felon.
Our economy on stimulus is only getting us a federal debt now larger than the size of our entire economy, and a government addicted to spending, just like an addict is addicted to drugs.
From one of the most famous and memorable PSA's ever created came the phrase "Your brain on Drugs." The first version of this PSA, created in 1987, showed a man who held up an egg and said, "This is your brain," before picking up a frying pan and adding, "This is drugs." He then cracks open the egg, fries the contents, and says, "This is your brain on drugs." Finally he looks up at the camera and asks, "Any questions?" It was later shortened to this:
An economy running on borrowed money used to create unproductive artificial stimulus is analogous to your brain on drugs. Self destruction is the inevitable result if we don't stop; just look at Greece.
"Any Questions?"
Liberals tout the seasonally adjusted employment numbers being improved as proof of the success of government economic stimuli. They conveniently ignore the fact that many more millions of people are "permanently" out of work so are no longer counted as unemployed, than there have been new jobs created. The fact is that the government "adjusts" the numbers to send the correct political message. The simple fact is that we have more people living in the USA than we did when Obama took office, and the total number of people employed is significantly lower. That is not job growth, Period. The method the government uses to count employment, etc. are continuously changed to reflect the political message the government wants to portray. If you want real numbers and an honest comparison look at the numbers and data from John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics. The basic problem we have is not that there isn't enough government stimuli but that the ruling elite are addicts. They are addicted to spending money they don't have.
What is needed is solid foundational jobs, production, and consumption based on real economic availability and demand. Artificial demand won't increase availability, nor entice those who produce to produce more.
People have been taking and using artificial stimulants longer than we have been recording history. Whether it be cocoa leaves or cocaine, coffee or amphetamines, drugs to keep energy levels unnaturally high have been used by people forever. They are not bad in and of themselves, a temporary stimulus to complete a task is not a bad thing, provided you don't continuously use them in place of food or sleep.
Consider cocaine, it can give you a short-term boost, but it can also cause your hart to race so intensely that it explodes. There is no nutritional value to artificial stimulants. They just accelerate the consumption of energy reserves that your body would not normally use if left to natural metabolic mechanisms. It does not create those reserves; replenish those reserves; sustain those reserves; it just uses them up. To be health you need normal amounts of food and sleep. When stimulants wear off, you either crash or take more. The long term effects are usually very bad, a wasted withered body that needs slow long term, and costly, recovery, or worse yet death. Nobody would claim or accept that being strung out on coke or amphetamines is healthy, wise, or effective way to live.
Economic stimulus doesn't work for the same reason. Economic stimulus is based on the same kind of thinking people who use drugs to stimulate their bodies for a prolonged time. It's based on a completely wrong notion of what spurs prosperity.
Liberals are now using a short time span graph, to illustrate that new European austerity programs (actually the ending of artificial stimulants to the economy), are actually hurting their economy. Have you ever seen a drug addict and what happens when the drugs are cut off whether by benevolent hospitalization, or by self-induced privation? They don't look or feel good, in fact for a period of time it is much harder and worse for them than if they had stayed on the drugs. Would anybody argue that the short term hardship, pain, and misery the drug addict suffers during rehabilitation is worse than continued drug dependence, which inevitably leads to self destruction.
Government stimulus through deficit spending does the same thing for the economy that stimulants do for the body. It takes value-added production that serves markets that want the goods and are able to purchase them to maintain real healthy and sustainable economic growth. When for various reasons not enough of that is happening, economic growth will slow or regress for a short period of time. Nobody enjoys that period of time, but necessary corrections are a necessity from time to time.
We sometimes refer to the economy as an engine. Adding nitrous-oxide and a performance exhaust to a car engine that has leaky valve or two may give that weakening engine temporarily power boost, but will also lead to far greater damage taking a far longer downtime to recover from needing to totally rebuild the engine than if the time was taken to do the more minor head work.
Drink too much on New Year 's Eve and you have a hangover New Year's Day. You can avoid that hangover if you stay drunk. Eventually you have to sober up, failing to do so is self destructive. The government is replacing the value-added, market-serving production that generates true economic growth with the superfluous spreading of borrowed money. Just like staying drunk to avoid a hangover, it doesn't work.
Not only our economy but the world's economy is past the point where a small temporary stimulus will provide an energy boost to get over the hump. Our federal government can "stimulate" our economy back to health. That's why Bush's TARP, and Obama's $862 billion stimulus were both boondoggles. Effective and lasting economic health will not return until we release the productive sector of the economy. The productive sector of our economy is the business sector, investing, taking risk, and succeeding and failing based on how they serve the people. The government needs to quit trying to pick economic winners and losers; to get out of the way of energy production; to cut taxes on businesses and individuals; and to stop treating everyone who earns a profit like a felon.
Our economy on stimulus is only getting us a federal debt now larger than the size of our entire economy, and a government addicted to spending, just like an addict is addicted to drugs.
From one of the most famous and memorable PSA's ever created came the phrase "Your brain on Drugs." The first version of this PSA, created in 1987, showed a man who held up an egg and said, "This is your brain," before picking up a frying pan and adding, "This is drugs." He then cracks open the egg, fries the contents, and says, "This is your brain on drugs." Finally he looks up at the camera and asks, "Any questions?" It was later shortened to this:
An economy running on borrowed money used to create unproductive artificial stimulus is analogous to your brain on drugs. Self destruction is the inevitable result if we don't stop; just look at Greece.
"Any Questions?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
