Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Obama's approval


Barak Hussein Obama's approval rating has drooped below 40%.
Obama blames "conservative" new casters like Glen Beck. There is an outside chance it could perhaps be the high unemployment, health insurance, debt/deficit, or the expansion of federal government?

What is my reaction? Only that much? I have met the 1, maybe 2% that approve of him. There might be 30% hypnotized by his election, but anyone who watches the news, his press conferences, and is an American they have to come to grips with where America is.
In reality i don't care how many people approve of Obama, or actually think he has a clue about one part of his job. Opinion aside the only thing so far he has actually accomplished is passing forced health insurance on Americans. Using 0% transparity, and using a dirty illegitimate vote, discredits the process of law and alienates the majority of Americans.

As a point of wonder, has Obama supplied his birth certificate yet? I still don't believe he has proved his citizenship.

What does this mean for being economically sound?
If you approve of Obama, what is it that you approve of and why? What has he done that you like, other than getting elected in the first place? Ohh yeah and "i just like him" doesn't count. Please reply, comment, contest, or agree.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Congratulations My Fellow Americans we are Socialists


In almost 20 years after the collapse of the USSR, the USA joins its former enemies.
All the wars we fought in the 20th century were against forms of government with central control, Nazi/Marxist, Socialist, Communist. Our enemies, the world wars, the cold war, all those Americans giving their lives to save "The land of the free and the home of the brave!" So what do we do now? We have elected the worst president in the history of our country. This president has forced the American people to surrender their freedom, and cares only for his history making bill, and agenda. Freddy Engels and Karl Marx got nothing on this guy Obama.

Now you might be saying, "How does nationalized health insurance make us socialist?" The answer lies in the words of a former president, before he was president he was an actor. Ronald Reagen said these words, "The American people would never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of a socialist program." Listen to him here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

He goes on,"One of the traditional methods of imposing socialism on a people is by means of medicine... if we can only get our foot in the door then we can expand the program after that."

Well my fellow Americans there ya have it. If you have the guts to read economics, read "The Road to Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek, where all this is spelled out in tremendous detail. Hayek will tell you the inefficiencies of socialism and why it always fails, like the USSR we will cripple ourselves from the inside out.

A piece of history to put this in context, what did those o'll guys think about this?
On March 23, 1777, Patrick Henry, later a noted Anti-Federalist, declared "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" Nationalized health insurance is that very thing, death. What more power does a government need over its people than to decide who lives and who dies? Based on price, race, gender, looks, or political/economic views? Who knows what the criteria will be. If its the latter i wont last long.

What does this mean for being economically sound?
A little extreme? Something we could use more of. My fellow countrymen we have a duty to protect this free land we love to live in, from enemies foreign and domestic. Take a stand, tell your friends send letters to your representatives, if they don't do something the next election will give them the boot. Perhaps we need to start a march to Washington from coast to coast, collect people as we go united against big government. Against govt. being 1/6 of our nations economy, against being forced to purchase insurance, against the ROBBERY OF OUR LIBERTY!

This would be hip, this would be American, this is the kind of statement we desperately need to make!

Thursday, August 27, 2009


News just came out that the national Debt will grow by two trillion dollars more than the white house expected in the next ten years, it was projected to grow my 7 trillion but not they project 9. My response, “ohh only two trillion more, wait roughly 15% of the GDP of the ENTIRE AMERICAN ECONOMY in a single year, now realized after a minor accounting error, talk about a budget out of control… WHAAHAHHH!”

The kicker is the white house didn’t even expect this. Their reckless spending has reckless spending of its own, and that spending had children. The white house is spending faster than the American people can produce. If this continues for another 3 years Americans will be eating pinecones to survive, and paying 98% of their paychecks to the govt. to pay off their debt. I don’t know about you but I don’t like pinecones. Where did that two trillion go anyway, into thin air, ejected into space, how do you not account for TWO TRILLION dollars.

Forget a housing crisis, and sub prime mortgages, Americans are in a serious spending crisis. The president that got elected because people thought he could fix the economy has “changed” things. Instead of worrying about the economy, the most popular excuse in America right now, we will worry about survival as a country. Our currency will face something like the German Deutschmark after World War one. Where a wheelbarrow full of cash = one loaf of bread. People will be migrating to Canada and Mexico. Our illegal immigration problem will be the only thing solved.
Don’t even think about paying the interest on that debt.

The best financial advisors will tell you to get out of debt. That is the first step to financial freedom and wealth building. Why at a time like this would any intelligent person decide to spend even more than the country has? A country moving backward, becomes more enslaved to debt, it is our very freedom at risk. This spending is on the account of the American citizens freedom.

What this means for our economy
We as Americans have to act! We can no longer sit and hope, we have to act. Write letters to our congressmen, get involved in this crap no matter how much we prefer not to. Like it or not this is our problem, deal with it now, before it gets worse. Get creative, think, America, Lady Liberty is in distress. Something must be done now! Protect our country from a domestic Enemy, America make a sound.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Big Government + Universal Health (insurance) = Efficiency (Not!)

“Barak Obama wants universal health care, health care for the entire universe, isn’t that a little much for the American tax payer?” -SNL

There is a reason Americans across the country are incensed, at this proposition. Comedy aside, Americans are having enough trouble trying to make ends meet, forget getting ahead. Obama’s proposed health care (actually govt. insurance) would be the dagger in the heart of a hurting America. California is at the point of desperation, because of their careless spending.
This reminds me of a quote from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings; “The quest now stands on the edge of a knife Stray just a little and it will fail.”
We can make it out of this, if we can get the federal government to stop spending money that we don’t have. We the American taxpayers are all in serious debt, and the feds are looking to increase it. Look at the widgets on this site to see for yourself.

When you find yourself in debt, would you be more conservative in your spending, and pinch every penny in order to get yourself out of it? Or would you keep spending, or spend more because the debt seemed un-payable? This is a mentality of our federal government at the moment.


Spending who’s hard earned money?
Don’t buy into the idea of the “Government’s money.” It all comes from the American taxpayer, and the debt is our liability. This is our hard earned dollars, not magic cash from somewhere over the rainbow. Where is consumer protection, or children’s rights? The debt is a burden that will be passed down to the coming generations. Do tomorrow’s children have the right, not to be born indebted for what our generation was careless on spending?

What does this mean for our economy?
In a world obsessed with being green, and leaving our world healthy for its children of the future, the old green dollar is being abused. Will there be any wealth left in American two generations from now? Anything left for your grandchildren to inherit? Or will they be inheriting a liability, born into debt? These are the unfortunate truths we have to face in this day and age. The choice: to be frugal and fruitful, or failed and in fear of the future.

I apologize if this post seems harsh, reality sometimes is.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Income Distribution (Young, Old)

This seemingly fancy term is misconstrued often these days. Not to be confused with distribution of wealth. The distribution of income is just this: Some people earn a higher salary than others who make less. When you hear distribution of income it is usually involved in some discussion about how the rich make “so much more money” than the rest of us. It sounds intelligent and is used to persuade those who don’t know the ins and outs of the term. It is part of the argument that makes Americans feel entitled to that money the rich have.

The economic Truth is this; the difference in the distribution of income is not the rich vs. the poor. Instead it is the older vs. the younger Americans. An example is this a person working in his/her 40’s has had at least 20 years more experience, education, or training than a 20 year old. With this experience, education, or training they are more skilled laborers, and should be compensated thusly. This same worker in their 40’s has had years to develop clientele, gain understanding of their field, and develop a network.

The “rich” and the “poor” are very often referred to, as they are different people. This is true for some, but the majority of Americans in the bottom 20% of the income bracket are the same to be in the very top bracket within the next 16 years. This is accounted for largely by students, and those developing skills as previously mentioned. It is not uncommon for most Americans in the top 5% to be 45 years old and up. It the year 2000 those households in the top 20% worked twice as much as those in the bottom 20%, which primarily indicates both mom and dad work among those in the top 20%. (information from the U.S. census)


What this means for being Economically Sound

Do not be deceived by the media or politicians who talk about the distribution of income to be an emotionally charged argument against a class system. This is America; the difference in income is actually the young and the old. So when they talk about taking all that extra money away from the rich and giving it to the poor. They are talking about your retirement, taking money away from mom and dad and giving it to their college kid. Weird when put in context, like lies usually are. This economic fallacy has been exposed and brought into the light, the hip-hop light. Therefore be economically sound, and don’t be persuaded by this distribution of income argument.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

The Importance of Prices, and sharing?

We use prices everyday but we don't think about what they mean. Prices simply reflect an abundance or a scarcity. They also play a very important role of allocating resources (meeting a demand with a supply.) What does all this mean? Well lets take a closer look.

As you know from my previous post, prices are a big difference between socialism and capitalism(free market economy.) They are also a main reason socialism Always fails.
The Last premier of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev once asked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: How do you see that people get food? The answer was she didn't, prices did that for her. Those British people ate better than the Russians, even though the British have never grown enough food to feed themselves in more than a century. Prices bring them food from other countries.

To explain this next part i will refer to "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell.
Sowell writes; If the government were to come up with a "plan" for "universal access" to beach-front homes and put "caps" on the prices that could be charged for such property, that would not change the underlying reality of the high ratio of people to beach-front land.
With a given population and a given amount of beach-front property, rationing without prices would now have to take place by bureaucratic fiat, political favoritism or random chance-but the rationing would still have to take place. Even if the government were to decree that beach-front homes were a "basic right" of all citizens, that would still not change the underlying reality in the slightest.

Prices are like messengers conveying news, in the case of beach-front property its bad news.
(Because of the scarcity, the price is higher. This is necessairy for rationing, the price is set by the demand of the market.)

Prices not only guide consumers, they guide producers as well. When all is said and done, producers cannot possibly know what millions of different consumers want.
While a free market system is sometimes called a profit system, it is really a profit-and-loss system and losses are equally important for the efficiency of the economy, because they tell the producers what to stop producing. Without really knowing why consumers like one product rather than another, producers automatically produce more of what earns them a profit, and less of what is losing money. Although the producers are only looking out for themselves and their companies' bottom line, nevertheless from the standpoint of the economy as a whole the society is using its scarce resources more efficiently because decisions are guided by prices.

Something to keep in mind: The efficient allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses is not just an abstract notion of economists. It determines how well or how poorly millions of people live.
From the standpoint of society as a whole, the "cost" of anything is the value i has in alternative uses. The cost of building a bridge are the other things that could have been built with that labor and material.

Now back to the U.S.S.R to illustrate another point. The Russians admitted this information. The production enterprises in the U.S.S.R always ask for more than they need in the way of raw materials, equipment, and other resources used in production. They take everything they can get regardless of how much they need, and don't worry about economizing on materials. After all nobody at the top knows exactly what the real requirements are, so squandering makes sense. Among the resources that get squandered are workers. Economists reported that from 5 to 15% of the workers in the majority of enterprises are surplus and are kept "just in case."
The consequence was that far more resources were used to produce a given amount of output in the soviet economy as compared to a price-coordinared economic system, such as that in the United States. Citing official Soviet statistics, Soviet economists lamented:
We use 1.5 times more materials and 2.1 times more energy per unit of national income than the United States. We use 2.4 times more metal per unit of national income that the U.S.

In a price-coordinated economy, employees and creditors insist on being paid, regardless of weather the managers and owners have made mistakes. This means that capitalist businesses can make only so many mistakes for so long before they have to either stop or get stopped-whether by an inability to get the labor and supplies they need or by bankruptcy.
In a feudal economy or a socialist economy (which is pretty much an oxymoron, socialist economy), leaders can continue to make the same mistakes indefinitely. The consequences are paid by others in the form of a standard of living lower than it would be if there were greater efficiency in the use of scarce resources.

The final facet of pricing i want to cover in this post is. The face that people demand more at a lower price and less at a higher price may be easy to understand, but it is also easy to forget.
In our society we have begun to believe certain fallacies. For example we blame high prices on "greed." People then speak of something being sold for more than its "real value," or of workers being paid less than they are "really" worth.
To treat prices as resulting from greed implies that sellers can set prices where they wish, that prices are not determined by supply and demand. It may well be true that some -or all-sellers prefer to get the highest price they can. But it is equally true that buyers usually wish to pay the lowest price that they can for goods of a given quantity. More importantly, the competition of numerous buyers and numerous sellers results in prices that leave each individual buyer and seller with little leeway.
Here is a great example:
When some natural disaster like a hurricane or a flood suddenly destroys many homes in a given area, the price of hotel rooms in that area may suddenly rise, as many people compete for a limited number of rooms, in order to avoid sleeping outdoors or having to double up with relatives or friends, or relocate outside the community. People who charge higher prices for hotel rooms, or for other things in short supply in the wake of some disaster, are espically likely to be condemed for "greed," but in fact the relationship between supply and demand has changed. Prices are simply performing one of their most important functions-rationing scarce resources.
If prices had remained at their previous levels after the disaster, a family of four might well rent two rooms, one for the parents and one for the children. But when hotel prices shoot up well beyond their usual level, all four family members ma crowd into one room in order to save money, leaving the other room for other people who have likewise lost their homes and are equally in need of shelter. If the government imposed price controls on this hotel, then the first to get to the hotel would take up more space and leave less of others, leaving more without a place to stay.

In short prices force people to share weather or not they are aware of sharing.

Coming soon, Price controls the exciting kind.
 
Custom Search