The Lunacy of the "Living Wage"

One thing I find really disturbing in recent weeks is the revival of that conversation about that Marxist concept they call the “living wage”. If for some reason you're not familiar with it (with the President's disciples out pimping it, it seems unlikely you would not have run into it), the idea behind it is you and your neighbor are somehow owed a living by your employer or that individual that is "lucky" enough to be blessed with your talents.

The problem with the concept is that the entire emphasis is all about what you are going to receive. Without any regard to the value you are providing. The emphasis always seems to be that someone owes it to you (it is very similar to the conversations about government and what they "owe" you). That seems so incredibly perverted to me.

As opposed to a more responsible paradigm: You being responsible for your own living, and being primarily concerned with what You are going to do in order to get what it is You desire. What skills you will provide, how many hours you will work, what are you willing to do to improve your skills, what you are willing to give up (in terms of your personal life, flexibility, and other comforts) in order to do it? Do you plan on working harder or smarter during the hours you do work? Can you invent something or provide a service that other people will pay for so you don't even have to work for a "wage"?

And once you answer those questions, can you come to a voluntary agreement with the parties you interact with in order to see what the fruits of your labor or ingenuity might bear? As opposed to using the political process to make demands by law or other kinds of force.

Wouldn't that be a refreshing conversation?

Who's in control?

‎"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison, Federalist Paper #45.

Here is a link to that paper, if you have never read it.

Federalist #45

Doesn't it seem as though every action today taken by our federal government assumes the exact opposite is true? Madison would be shocked.

Finding Clarity in the Health Care Debate

Michael Tanner at Cato with a good article that gets at the root of a lot of the health care issue. Take a look at this link:

Link: The Case for High-Deductible Health Insurance

There is a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of insurance. Insurance is meant to cover infrequent and unexpected occurrences and insulate the buyer from catastrophic events. Contrary to popular belief, insurance does not mean that all of your services are included, nor does it mean that someone else pays for your services.

Reform that tries to make insurance some type of all-inclusive concept that is paid for by other people obscures the issue. As Tanner points out, that leads to overconsumption of resources and add to rising costs. And it should be obvious that adding more people to this kind of system isn't going to make things any better.

It has been proven time and time again, that best decisions are made when individuals have responsibility to choose their own services and pay out of their own pocket for the services they consume. Any solutions to problems that ignore this will likely make the situation worse.

Requiem for the Dollar

Great insights in a December Wall Street Journal by Jim Grant of Grant's Interest Rate Observer on the mismanagement of our fiat currency.

WSJ Article: Requiem for the Dollar


Enjoy!!!

Smart versus Wise

Thank God for Thomas Sowell. If only we had his wisdom in office as opposed to the so called "brains" of our narcissistic "anointed one".

The Brainy Bunch

Sound Good While Saying Nothing!!!

You want to be able to sound good, yet say nothing like the president? Rich Lowry of National Review gives us a quick rundown of how to do it.

An Obama Speech in 13 Easy Steps

Best of luck in your career as a demagogue!!!

What is (or isn't) a Right?

I hear more talk from people about what they have a "right" to in this society than I have in a long time, and they are being egged on by our socialist-in-chief and his friends in Congress. I especially like it when they put the word "right" in the same sentence as the nebulous word "need".

But let's talk about a right: if you or someone else has to take whatever it is we're talking about (or the resources to get it) from me or someone else in order for you to have it, then what you're talking about isn't a right at all.

Can you imagine the reaction of majority of the world's people who get by on a few dollars per day, should they be forced to listen to the arrogant Americans drone on about their "right" to the things in this society which so many of us are so fortunate to be able to access?

It is both dumbfounding and disturbing to me.

GWB - A Presidency to Forget

Here is a good quick read by Doug Casey summarizing some of the "highlights" of G.W. Bush's presidency.

Baby Bush: The Worst President in History?

Contrary to all the rhetoric in the media, from his oppponents, and even from Mr. Bush himself, this president presided over one of the biggest expansions of government in history. His administration presided over massive increases in spending on social programs, subsidies, corporate bailouts, and no-win wars. There were massive new bureaucracies introduced, more regulations introduced to further burden already beleaguered financial markets , and chilling new intrusions foisted upon people's liberties and privacy.

What is curious to me is that all of this damage was accomplished in the name of such principles as "American values", "free markets", "capitalism", and "conservatism", and fooled many people into believing this is what it looks like when those words are used. Nothing could be further from the truth. After a couple of decades of incremental advances, statism took major steps forward under the G.W. Bush Administration. In the meantime, the springboard was provided for current administration to launch their brand of statist socialism, while proclaiming the failures of liberty, capitalism, and free markets. Unfortunately, that will be Bush's legacy in the end.

Cash for Clunkers Madness

The ridiculous Cash for Clunkers program came to a close earlier this week. Let's recap the thinking of our Washington braintrust:

1. Our stroke of genius will be to subsidize new cars to the tune of $3,500 to $4,500 which for the most part, will benefit middle to upper class citizens;

2. We'll encourage people to buy new cars at a time where at best it is inadvisable that they take on more debt -- forget that unemployment and defaults on loans are at their highest point in years;

3. We'll then destroy those very cars that are the most affordable at a time when those people that are not well off need it the most, and in the process hurt those same people by driving up the prices of the remaining used cars and their spare parts;

4. We'll be picking winners and losers again by giving money to one industry at the expense of other industries that will not get money from their customers that auto dealers will end up getting. Knowing we are already getting cries from these industries for the same bad policy to be applied to them;

5. And to fund this lunacy, we'll continue down that same path of looting current and future generations of taxpayers that help to create much of the mess we're in in the first place. It's been a winning formula that's kept us elected in the past;

6. And then when it's done, we can position this as a success by pointing out the success for the auto industry because of the increase in sales while ignoring the consequences. And some people will have shiny new cars!!!

I think that about sums it up. When will this madness end?

A New Push to Play God from Washington

Another good Thomas Sowell article:

A New Push to Play God from Washington

Free, Guaranteed Health Care?

Which would you rather have: free, guaranteed access to a product of low quality, "one size fits all" with regard to features, little to no hope for future innovation, run by bureaucrats, and where the providers are likely to have cost overruns and eventually go bankrupt?

Or a product you are required to pay for, that is available, of reasonable quality, with a variety of choices, run by companies who are competing and trying to attract customers, and continuously improving and innovating their product with new and emerging technologies, and where the providers make a profit so you have some comfort they will be around for a while?

I know my answer to the question.

Is this not the essence of the health care debate?

Bad Economists vs. Good Economists

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

--Frédéric Bastiat

As the ridiculous Cash for Clunkers program comes to its end, fraught with all its unintended and unforeseen consequences -- it is obvious that this administration only listens to the bad economists. I can only imagine what Bastiat's reaction would have been.....

Death by Bureaucrats?

Novelist Andrew Klavan, author of Empire of Lies, imagines in today's
Wall Street Journal opinion page what death by bureaucratic fiat might look like.

Link to WSJ editorial page: The Panel

Health Care Plan Invokes the Postal Service as Example?

Mr. Obama recently invoked the Postal Service in a conversation about his health care plans; more specifically, he used the incompetence of the postal service as rationale for support of a public health care option to "compete" with private plans in the marketplace.

So, I wanted to attempt to put this perspective. The United States Postal Service has a state-enforced monopoly in what is a very simple core business -- delivering first class mail. The organization has run at loss since its existence, has substandard service at best, and obviously has been heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. As a matter of fact, it is on track to lose $7 billion this year.

In the USPS's non-core business (overnight deliveries, packages, etc.), companies like FedEx, UPS, and private messengers do compete (albeit at a disadvantage versus their subsidized competitor), provide better service, and manage to turn a profit to their shareholders. Now the Post Office could decide to undercut them on price and lose additional billions and gain more market share even with their level of service, but as you might imagine there would be little to no political stomach for it.

In today's healthcare environment, profit and not-for-profit businesses compete with each other in the face of creeping government interference -- in many cases telling them where they can compete, what products they can offer, and what they can charge. Those who operate at a loss go out of business. Many still make a profit -- with an edge going to the larger companies obviously, because of the barriers to entry put up.

Now the federal government has decided it wants to come in and "compete", by entering the business with a plan that effectively forces their customers (small businesses in particular) to buy from them at artifically set low rates. Now does this competitor care whether or not they run at a loss? Of course not, why should they care -- the taxpayers are in this for over a trillion dollars and much more in future liabilities as no one will admit they've understated the cost of the a government run system.

Who thinks this won't change the rules of the game? Will the result be fair for the companies that are competing against them, their shareholders, and their employees when they are forced out of business?

And as to quality of service going forward: if you have a package to be delivered the next day that is a matter of life or death, who are you going to choose, a private service or the post office? (If you said the post office, you are either being disingenuous or you just don't have a clue....).

Your health care is argued by many as being a matter of life or death - do you want these decisions to go the way of the post office by forcing out private enterprise? I'm just asking....

Whole Foods vs. Obamacare

The John Mackey editorial in The Wall Street Journal this week set off a reaction from some Whole Foods Market customers who endorse Obamacare -- there was some coverage this week about a group of customers that vowed never to shop there again because Mackey (CEO) chose to speak his mind on the topic.

I applaud the right of these customers to exercise their freedom of choice and buy groceries wherever they please, but does anyone other than I find it ironic that if Obamacare passes, there is no choice about whether or not to participate and that I have no choice whether or not my tax dollars go to support it?

John Stossel reason.tv Interviews

I found an interview from earlier this year by reason.tv with John Stossel, the ABC news correspondent and co-anchor of ABC's 20/20, and author of the bestseller Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. His Stossel in the Classroom foundation is a great resource for teachers looking to help students build critical thinking skills on current events.

Here is one media member who is able to think objectively, often in the face of ridicule and scorn by his peers. In an age where the media seem to be so smitten by those who promote a larger role for government in our lives, it gives me some optimism to see some voices of reason in the crowd. Take a look...

Eliminating Competition is a Bad Idea

Below is a link to a good editorial in the New York Post today from Michael Tanner at the Cato Institute.

Link: OBAMACARE KILLS HEALTH COMPETITION

Well said, Michael. Tear down the barriers to competition, don't erect new ones!!!

Scare Tactics?

If you as a citizen are really scared about something and are concerned that others should be scared by it as well, then one thing you might do to change things is to educate people on the facts. And by definition, you have used a "scare tactic". Imagine that. In my humble opinion, there is nothing wrong with that when you are speaking the truth, even if it bothers our fearless leader and his cronies.

Other People's Money

One always has to wonder about the grand plans of the statists and socialists who position themselves as men/women of the people, humanitarians, compassionate (with bleeding hearts to prove it!!!), a group that truly cares about others, whose only goal in life is to improve the human condition....but I ask you, do they ever pose a plan where their professed largesse and heartfelt generosity doesn't include spending more of other people's money than their own?

Obama-Care Sticker Shock

Check this out from our friends at reason.tv. I like the idea that any politician who sponsors a bill with a cost overrun is forbidden from running for re-election. hmm. I wonder if that might change behavior?

We hear the trillion-dollar figure all the time, but how much would ObamaCare really end up costing? If we've learned anything from previous government programs, it's that the actual price almost always shoots far beyond the advertised price. ...

Thomas Sowell : Utopia Versus Freedom

Take a look at this editorial by Thomas Sowell - one of the great economic minds of our day.

Thomas Sowell : Utopia Versus Freedom - Townhall.com

Wise and timely words in era where people have been trained by their government to expect them to try and "do something" about any issue that comes along in their lives -- and then expect them to do more of the same when the solution doesn't work.

Happy Birthday, Milton!!!

This weekend (July 31) marks the 97th birthday of Milton Friedman, who passed away in 2006. His thought leadership in the economics of human freedom and individual choice was extraordinary. If you haven't ever read Capitalism and Freedom, or Free To Choose (or watched the PBS series of that same name), I would highly recommend it. Happy birthday, Milton!!!