In our 24-7 media world where politicians attempting to get votes can gain access to the public at will, common sense approaches are sometimes lost for everyday problems. Politicians are always trying to win over a vote or two with their new big plan to fix our economy. Good pro-Capitalist economists (the only ones that are good) make lousy politicians because the truth is not fancy and not attractive to voters unless those voters understand history and economics. Since our public has inadequate knowledge of both those subjects, economist usually waste no time pursuing politics.
The fact is, good economics would allow the auto industry to go bankrupt like the free market has desired it to do. The free market says that some auto makers make us vehicles we like and others do not. Those who make what we want and do it efficiently are making money and not close to going under. Those who have made bad decisions are close to going out of business. There is nothing wrong with that. Politicians argue that our economy could not handle that happening right now. What about the milk man that use to deliver milk? What about the man that use to deliver large blocks of ice to your house? What about the majority of the population that use to be farmers? Should we have saved all of their jobs when grocery stores seemed more efficient? What about when ice makers were put in refrigerators and freezers? Or when capital was created to farm quicker and more efficiently, should we have stopped that from happening so that all those farmers could have kept their jobs of working on the farm for 14 hours a day?
It seems scary to think of such a large sector of our economy going out of business. It seems scary to me to think of life without refrigerators, ice-makers, machinery to do farming, and grocery stores with tons of food at pretty cheap prices!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Hamilton, Fulmer, Politics
By reading the title of this entry your probably shaking your head, tensing your eyebrowns, or doing the one eyebrow raise. Or at least that is what I do when I see something that does not make sense. This year's tennessee football season explains in a way what Alexander Hamilton said about our government many years ago as one of our founding fathers.
This year I think Philip Fulmer was asked to resign due to emotions. Is it true that recently he has struggled to win as often as we use to? Yes. Is it true that the SEC is tougher this year than it use to be? Yes as well. Is it true that last year Florida lost 5 games, just two less than Tennessee this year? Yes. I do not think that Athletic Director Hamilton wanted to fire Fulmer. I think the fans emotional spills at Neyland Stadium and in the Blogs forced him to make a change. The emotions of the fans impacted him too much in other words. That does not take away the blame I put on Hamilton, but it does show the problem with the masses making so many decisions.
Alexander hamilton said he was afraid of true democracy because of the emotional swings of the public that would cause them to make bad decisions. He was against having a monarchy as well, but wanted safety clauses in our government not to only protect from the rise of kings, but the rise of pure democracy. I think it is interesting in that I believe the masses made the decision on Fulmer. Today many of those fans are regretting it because they learned that Fulmer is one of the most loved coaches in the nation, and how well or team could have been with a quarterback. Yes there were many other problems. I'm not blind and know a good deal about football. But with a quarterback, other things fall into place. Without the fans emotions changing so much, Fulmer stays, changes the offense back to something his players can adapt to, and they probably win 10 games next season with so many returning players, including the best running back we have had since Travis Henry - Lennon Creer.
Fulmer will be missed. Lets learn from this emotional decision, how you NEVER EVER VOTE or make a decision based on EMOTIONS.
This year I think Philip Fulmer was asked to resign due to emotions. Is it true that recently he has struggled to win as often as we use to? Yes. Is it true that the SEC is tougher this year than it use to be? Yes as well. Is it true that last year Florida lost 5 games, just two less than Tennessee this year? Yes. I do not think that Athletic Director Hamilton wanted to fire Fulmer. I think the fans emotional spills at Neyland Stadium and in the Blogs forced him to make a change. The emotions of the fans impacted him too much in other words. That does not take away the blame I put on Hamilton, but it does show the problem with the masses making so many decisions.
Alexander hamilton said he was afraid of true democracy because of the emotional swings of the public that would cause them to make bad decisions. He was against having a monarchy as well, but wanted safety clauses in our government not to only protect from the rise of kings, but the rise of pure democracy. I think it is interesting in that I believe the masses made the decision on Fulmer. Today many of those fans are regretting it because they learned that Fulmer is one of the most loved coaches in the nation, and how well or team could have been with a quarterback. Yes there were many other problems. I'm not blind and know a good deal about football. But with a quarterback, other things fall into place. Without the fans emotions changing so much, Fulmer stays, changes the offense back to something his players can adapt to, and they probably win 10 games next season with so many returning players, including the best running back we have had since Travis Henry - Lennon Creer.
Fulmer will be missed. Lets learn from this emotional decision, how you NEVER EVER VOTE or make a decision based on EMOTIONS.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Just a thought...
I would love to hear people's opinion who read my articles from time to time. On this subject particularly.
The idea that I will interest you in is restrictions on voters. Restrictions on who can vote that is. Alexander Hamilton had if not the most influence on our founding, the second most aside from James Madison. He said that he feared the ignorance of citizens and their tendency to allow their emotions to fluctuate when making decisions. It is this reason that he was not a big fan of the Virginia Plan (the plan eventually chosen as our government with a compromise included) that was written by James Madison as a proposal for our national government. He feared democracy. He was not in favor of an aristocracy or monarchy, but he was against pure democracy. He did favor representative government to keep the voter out of most all decisions other than who would be those representatives. And even with that there were restrictions on who could vote for representatives.
Originally only land owning non-slave men could vote in elections. Women, Slaves, and those who did not own land could not vote. My question is should we re-think this idea of allowing all people to vote? I'm not talking about restricting based on race or gender. But should we only allow those who have worked a certain amount of weeks over the past 2 years to vote? What about those on Welfare? Should someone that has to live off of worker's taxes be allowed to vote? Should a homeless man who has not worked in 2 years have his vote count the same as a business man who has created jobs for hundreds or thousands of people like Bill Gates? If over half the country does not pay taxes, are they not more likely to vote for a candidate that says : "I will have the rich pay their fair share (meaning all the taxes while you pay none unless you get a better job and make more money) so that you will not have to pay any taxes." Even if the candidate is not close to being qualified, if half the electorate are non-tax payers, do they not have an emotional incentive to vote for the unqualified candidate simply because he guarantees that they will never have to pay taxes?
I only bring this up not as a radical who wants to only have rich people vote. I'm simply explaining some of the thoughts of our founding fathers and just maybe, despite them being wrong on many things such as slavery and woman's role, were they right on this one? Should all Americans be able to vote? I personally think not. I believe our electorate is so dumb that their decisions are the wrong ones in many cases. Our founding fathers did not vote to have a democracy. They voted and signed a document to protect us from both the rise of kings and the rise of ignorant democracy. Both they feared, and both equally feared.
What say you?
The idea that I will interest you in is restrictions on voters. Restrictions on who can vote that is. Alexander Hamilton had if not the most influence on our founding, the second most aside from James Madison. He said that he feared the ignorance of citizens and their tendency to allow their emotions to fluctuate when making decisions. It is this reason that he was not a big fan of the Virginia Plan (the plan eventually chosen as our government with a compromise included) that was written by James Madison as a proposal for our national government. He feared democracy. He was not in favor of an aristocracy or monarchy, but he was against pure democracy. He did favor representative government to keep the voter out of most all decisions other than who would be those representatives. And even with that there were restrictions on who could vote for representatives.
Originally only land owning non-slave men could vote in elections. Women, Slaves, and those who did not own land could not vote. My question is should we re-think this idea of allowing all people to vote? I'm not talking about restricting based on race or gender. But should we only allow those who have worked a certain amount of weeks over the past 2 years to vote? What about those on Welfare? Should someone that has to live off of worker's taxes be allowed to vote? Should a homeless man who has not worked in 2 years have his vote count the same as a business man who has created jobs for hundreds or thousands of people like Bill Gates? If over half the country does not pay taxes, are they not more likely to vote for a candidate that says : "I will have the rich pay their fair share (meaning all the taxes while you pay none unless you get a better job and make more money) so that you will not have to pay any taxes." Even if the candidate is not close to being qualified, if half the electorate are non-tax payers, do they not have an emotional incentive to vote for the unqualified candidate simply because he guarantees that they will never have to pay taxes?
I only bring this up not as a radical who wants to only have rich people vote. I'm simply explaining some of the thoughts of our founding fathers and just maybe, despite them being wrong on many things such as slavery and woman's role, were they right on this one? Should all Americans be able to vote? I personally think not. I believe our electorate is so dumb that their decisions are the wrong ones in many cases. Our founding fathers did not vote to have a democracy. They voted and signed a document to protect us from both the rise of kings and the rise of ignorant democracy. Both they feared, and both equally feared.
What say you?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Are we better off today?
Recently on another blog I had a somewhat heated debate about the well-being of people in America today. He wanted to argue that since the Reagan revolution, the poor have become worse off and the well to do have become better off. One arguement I used was that wealth is a better judgement than yearly income for a number of reason. Lets look at some facts that were reached by economists Michael Cox and Richard Alm at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas.
They did a study on income and spending differences of different income brackets. When taking statistics based on income only, retirement payments, investment pay outs, savings withdraws, capital sells such as homes and cares, and many other variables are not taken into consideration. These economist show that since 1975 the percentage of national income of the top 20 percent of income earners income rose from 43.6 to 49.6 percent while that of the lowest 20 percent, at $10,000, fell from 4.3 to 3.3 percent. Thus it appears that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But lets take a closer look. Income is not a determinate of wealth. In fact Cox and Alm found that While the lowest fifth averages $10,000 in income, they spend almost twice that amount. The highest fifth averages $150,000 and spends about $70,000, the rest goes to taxes and savings. The middle fifth averages $45,000 and spends about $35,000. While there's a large income gap of 15 to 1 between the top fifth and lowest fifth, the spending gap pales in comparison. (Walter Williams article 04/02/08). Due to other areas of income, not just wages, statistics can be deceiving when not considering thos other areas of income.
These statistics are also for household. Keep this in mind as well... high-income households have more people living in those households due to averaging 3.1 people in the top fifth income brackett. This compared to 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. This means that the income gap per person in the house hold closes between those in the higher brackett and those in the lower brackets.
So let me conclude with looking at the wealth of these people which will allow us to look at the effects of the other areas of income and the drop in "real prices". Walter Williams states that "years ago, a worker earning the average wage had to work 365 hours to purchase a VCR; today it's two hours. A cell phone dropped from 456 hours of work in 1984 to four hours today. A personal computer, with thousands of times the computing power of the 1984 I.B.M., declined from 435 hours of work to 25 hours." He continues "Nearly all American families now have refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and radios. Air conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD players, microwave ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers and cell phones have reached more than 80 percent of households."
The fact is wealth has increased due to our capitalistic ways while some politicians and economist with an agenda might hide some variables out of their statistics and thus a true reading or description of our well-doing is mis-leading. Keep this in mind the next time someone wants to tell you that life is getting worse not better for those who are not the so called "rich" in America.
They did a study on income and spending differences of different income brackets. When taking statistics based on income only, retirement payments, investment pay outs, savings withdraws, capital sells such as homes and cares, and many other variables are not taken into consideration. These economist show that since 1975 the percentage of national income of the top 20 percent of income earners income rose from 43.6 to 49.6 percent while that of the lowest 20 percent, at $10,000, fell from 4.3 to 3.3 percent. Thus it appears that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But lets take a closer look. Income is not a determinate of wealth. In fact Cox and Alm found that While the lowest fifth averages $10,000 in income, they spend almost twice that amount. The highest fifth averages $150,000 and spends about $70,000, the rest goes to taxes and savings. The middle fifth averages $45,000 and spends about $35,000. While there's a large income gap of 15 to 1 between the top fifth and lowest fifth, the spending gap pales in comparison. (Walter Williams article 04/02/08). Due to other areas of income, not just wages, statistics can be deceiving when not considering thos other areas of income.
These statistics are also for household. Keep this in mind as well... high-income households have more people living in those households due to averaging 3.1 people in the top fifth income brackett. This compared to 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. This means that the income gap per person in the house hold closes between those in the higher brackett and those in the lower brackets.
So let me conclude with looking at the wealth of these people which will allow us to look at the effects of the other areas of income and the drop in "real prices". Walter Williams states that "years ago, a worker earning the average wage had to work 365 hours to purchase a VCR; today it's two hours. A cell phone dropped from 456 hours of work in 1984 to four hours today. A personal computer, with thousands of times the computing power of the 1984 I.B.M., declined from 435 hours of work to 25 hours." He continues "Nearly all American families now have refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and radios. Air conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD players, microwave ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers and cell phones have reached more than 80 percent of households."
The fact is wealth has increased due to our capitalistic ways while some politicians and economist with an agenda might hide some variables out of their statistics and thus a true reading or description of our well-doing is mis-leading. Keep this in mind the next time someone wants to tell you that life is getting worse not better for those who are not the so called "rich" in America.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
What does it mean?
This has been a rough week for myself. The "firing" of my coach Phil Fulmer, tough week in basketball practice, and now yes the worse news of all... the American people have decided that socialism is the way to go.
So what does it mean? It means very simply that the teacher unions, Department of Education, Our college universities, and media have been victorious in polluting a generation of minds to think very liberal like. Our founding fathers feared democracy because they were not sure that a population could be educated enough on the facts to make good decisions. That is why we have a republic and not a pure democracy. This election was partially about Republican vs. Democrat. Republicans have lost their way. They have very few conservative voices of reason that can express their ideas with ease and excitement. Fred Thompson proved that. The most conservative of all of them couldn't say a sentence without clearing his throat. We need some Barack Obama type figures in the party that can express themselves in a persuasive manner. Obama is a socialist on the verge of Marxism. Some possible candidates in the future- Bobby Jindal, Bob Portman, Jess Raby.... ok just kidding.
It is sad that President Bush did not stick by his values and take his views to the American people. He should have warned us about what happens when government forces and pressures companies into making loans to people who could not pay them back. He should have cut out wasteful spending, not passed the largest welfare package of prescription drug benefits, or passed one of the largest transfers of education power to the federal government in history with "No Child Left Behind."
So what now? Sadly enough, we have to allow Barack Obama screw things up so bad with socialist like policies that have hurt Democrats in the past like Roosevelt and Carter. Republicans then have to come back in with pro-market and pro-freedom ideas. I hope that they do not think this was a sign that they must become more like Democrats. If they do, which I'm afraid they might, then we can kiss our prosperity goodbye within about 20 years. Remember the only reason socialist countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and most eastern European nations can have such prosperous lives (although not as nice as ours) is because America produces so many things that they use, that they would not produce themselves very efficiently if we did not. Things like medicine. America gets alot from other nations, but only because we have a comparative advantage in trading with them. European nations simply do not produce a lot because of their backward economies. Keep in mind also that it is the American military that is paid for by our tax dollars, which are generated due to our GDP and growth of wealth that protect our world from evil. If we spent all our military money on welfare policies like those countries do, we too could survive for a time. That is until evil attacks. With those countries, if evil attacked them, they know we would come to help.
Our nation's voters have turned to liberalism, socialism, and now close to Marxism. Can we turn it back? I don't know. The facts are on our side if we could get some educated people to show this. John McCain, George Bush??? Are you kidding me? We need to choose leaders that gave a clue of how to express those ideas. I hope we get them in 4 years before its way too late!
So what does it mean? It means very simply that the teacher unions, Department of Education, Our college universities, and media have been victorious in polluting a generation of minds to think very liberal like. Our founding fathers feared democracy because they were not sure that a population could be educated enough on the facts to make good decisions. That is why we have a republic and not a pure democracy. This election was partially about Republican vs. Democrat. Republicans have lost their way. They have very few conservative voices of reason that can express their ideas with ease and excitement. Fred Thompson proved that. The most conservative of all of them couldn't say a sentence without clearing his throat. We need some Barack Obama type figures in the party that can express themselves in a persuasive manner. Obama is a socialist on the verge of Marxism. Some possible candidates in the future- Bobby Jindal, Bob Portman, Jess Raby.... ok just kidding.
It is sad that President Bush did not stick by his values and take his views to the American people. He should have warned us about what happens when government forces and pressures companies into making loans to people who could not pay them back. He should have cut out wasteful spending, not passed the largest welfare package of prescription drug benefits, or passed one of the largest transfers of education power to the federal government in history with "No Child Left Behind."
So what now? Sadly enough, we have to allow Barack Obama screw things up so bad with socialist like policies that have hurt Democrats in the past like Roosevelt and Carter. Republicans then have to come back in with pro-market and pro-freedom ideas. I hope that they do not think this was a sign that they must become more like Democrats. If they do, which I'm afraid they might, then we can kiss our prosperity goodbye within about 20 years. Remember the only reason socialist countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and most eastern European nations can have such prosperous lives (although not as nice as ours) is because America produces so many things that they use, that they would not produce themselves very efficiently if we did not. Things like medicine. America gets alot from other nations, but only because we have a comparative advantage in trading with them. European nations simply do not produce a lot because of their backward economies. Keep in mind also that it is the American military that is paid for by our tax dollars, which are generated due to our GDP and growth of wealth that protect our world from evil. If we spent all our military money on welfare policies like those countries do, we too could survive for a time. That is until evil attacks. With those countries, if evil attacked them, they know we would come to help.
Our nation's voters have turned to liberalism, socialism, and now close to Marxism. Can we turn it back? I don't know. The facts are on our side if we could get some educated people to show this. John McCain, George Bush??? Are you kidding me? We need to choose leaders that gave a clue of how to express those ideas. I hope we get them in 4 years before its way too late!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
PRICES Part two
It is important to understand that prices determine of how much of something will be bought and how much of it will be produced. In other words price effects supply and demand. The higher the price, the more of that good a producer wants to make because they can sell it for that high price and make a profit off of it. This also makes consumers demand less of it, thus preserving the good that has been produced for the people who want or need it the most.
Gas prices demonstrate this in an extroardinary way. Oil is sold on a world market and thus prices are set for oil based on the demand and supply of the world. The more the world demands something the higher the price will go. This is a good thing. The reason for it is that while prices rise, producers will make more to try and make that extra profit. When the supply then rises, prices will come back down. The other benefit is that when prices originally rise, people buy less and thus those who need it the most will have more available for them. Recently prices of gas have fallen quickly. After the recent hurricane, supply of gas was hurt because some of our refineries in Texas were disturbed by the hurricane. If the government stays out, prices will rise quickly enough so that only those who need the gas will buy it. I myself chose not to take a casual trip to Chattanooga because it would have cost me a dollar more per gallon. But prices rising in a time when supply is low or tight, is not such a bad thing. The man or woman who had to go to work on Saturday and Sunday and needed gas, would not have to worry about finding gas for sell. Some gas stations ran out of gas. If they had been free to and had raised their prices to what the price needed to be to curve demand, then they would not have ran out of gas to sell.
Recently the refineries are up and running at top speed and prices have fallen back down very quickly. We have also seen the economy sliding but not only here at home but world wide. This means that speculators or investors who buy oil on the world market expect demand to to be lower in the future. So they have bid the price of oil down because people are not going to be buying it as much nor will world economies be using as much gas to operate. Thus oil prices dropped. Within a few weeks that oil that is bought for cheap, gets refined into gas and when that gas gets to the gas station is is sold there for less than the older gas and thus gas stations can lower their prices. This is why prices have dropped so much. At the same time of our refining capacity getting back to normal, world demand for oil has dropped and thus prices drop considerably.
Some people complain about the profits of oil companies. Remember their profit per dollar of gas sold is less than $.10. This is a very low profit margin. It is a good thing that these companies make a lot of money because that means they can expand their company and produce more oil and supply will rise and thus prices will eventually go back down. The only problem is that our government currently restricts this from happening because liberals are held by the grip of extreme environmentalists. That means when the economy starts to grow again, prices for gas will rise again. We can keeps this from happening as quickly and as high, if we start drilling now. I'm afraid we won't though.
Gas prices demonstrate this in an extroardinary way. Oil is sold on a world market and thus prices are set for oil based on the demand and supply of the world. The more the world demands something the higher the price will go. This is a good thing. The reason for it is that while prices rise, producers will make more to try and make that extra profit. When the supply then rises, prices will come back down. The other benefit is that when prices originally rise, people buy less and thus those who need it the most will have more available for them. Recently prices of gas have fallen quickly. After the recent hurricane, supply of gas was hurt because some of our refineries in Texas were disturbed by the hurricane. If the government stays out, prices will rise quickly enough so that only those who need the gas will buy it. I myself chose not to take a casual trip to Chattanooga because it would have cost me a dollar more per gallon. But prices rising in a time when supply is low or tight, is not such a bad thing. The man or woman who had to go to work on Saturday and Sunday and needed gas, would not have to worry about finding gas for sell. Some gas stations ran out of gas. If they had been free to and had raised their prices to what the price needed to be to curve demand, then they would not have ran out of gas to sell.
Recently the refineries are up and running at top speed and prices have fallen back down very quickly. We have also seen the economy sliding but not only here at home but world wide. This means that speculators or investors who buy oil on the world market expect demand to to be lower in the future. So they have bid the price of oil down because people are not going to be buying it as much nor will world economies be using as much gas to operate. Thus oil prices dropped. Within a few weeks that oil that is bought for cheap, gets refined into gas and when that gas gets to the gas station is is sold there for less than the older gas and thus gas stations can lower their prices. This is why prices have dropped so much. At the same time of our refining capacity getting back to normal, world demand for oil has dropped and thus prices drop considerably.
Some people complain about the profits of oil companies. Remember their profit per dollar of gas sold is less than $.10. This is a very low profit margin. It is a good thing that these companies make a lot of money because that means they can expand their company and produce more oil and supply will rise and thus prices will eventually go back down. The only problem is that our government currently restricts this from happening because liberals are held by the grip of extreme environmentalists. That means when the economy starts to grow again, prices for gas will rise again. We can keeps this from happening as quickly and as high, if we start drilling now. I'm afraid we won't though.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
What really caused this serious Financial Crisis
I have attempted to write about the housing crisis on my blog. It is a really complicated issue that when reading about, unless you have some good economic background might be hard to understand. This video helps out tramendously. It is 10 minutes long. Which is long for many of you probably. It will be worth it and it makes lots of sense. Please read and share with friends if you would please....
444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" id="JibJabPlayer" width="440" height="370" align="middle">
444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" id="JibJabPlayer" width="440" height="370" align="middle">
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Powell endorses McCain
I'm sure the mainstream media will run this for at least three days even if there is another terrorist attack. "Former Bush Secretary of State and fellow Republican, surprisingly endorses the monumental figure Obama!" Lets put this in perspective.
Powell has never been a true conservative and thus this should be of no surprise. In fact as Secretary of State, Bush was probably trying to be non-partisan with the appointment. When Powell and former First head of Homeland Security- Tom Ridge were both rumored to be possible V.P. picks, conservatives hammered McCain into not picking them. Powell is pro-choice and has not been extremely supportive of Bush since he has left his position as Secretary of State. He has always leaned a little left which means he is more of an internationalist and not a nationalist like conservatives are. That is why he cited his belief that Obama will bring back some of our reputation from the other countries of the world. Don't get me wrong I wish other nations loved me too. But most nations loved Chamberlain when he waved the letter from Hitler back before WWII because they did not want war. But in the end it was the aggressive Churchill that saved Western Civilization. I don't want other countries to like me if it risks my existence or strength in the world. I could care less about the majority. Hitler had the majority of support before he killed millions of Jews.
Powell is a republican in name only. He is also Black. There are Black Republicans such as the conservative writer, John McWhorter who are favoring Obama because of the history. It should not be a huge surprise that Powell has done this. He was also not picked to be the Veep for McCain, so he might have some animosity towards him. The fact is, this does not mean a thing, but the media will make it a huge story!
Part 2 on prices coming soon
Powell has never been a true conservative and thus this should be of no surprise. In fact as Secretary of State, Bush was probably trying to be non-partisan with the appointment. When Powell and former First head of Homeland Security- Tom Ridge were both rumored to be possible V.P. picks, conservatives hammered McCain into not picking them. Powell is pro-choice and has not been extremely supportive of Bush since he has left his position as Secretary of State. He has always leaned a little left which means he is more of an internationalist and not a nationalist like conservatives are. That is why he cited his belief that Obama will bring back some of our reputation from the other countries of the world. Don't get me wrong I wish other nations loved me too. But most nations loved Chamberlain when he waved the letter from Hitler back before WWII because they did not want war. But in the end it was the aggressive Churchill that saved Western Civilization. I don't want other countries to like me if it risks my existence or strength in the world. I could care less about the majority. Hitler had the majority of support before he killed millions of Jews.
Powell is a republican in name only. He is also Black. There are Black Republicans such as the conservative writer, John McWhorter who are favoring Obama because of the history. It should not be a huge surprise that Powell has done this. He was also not picked to be the Veep for McCain, so he might have some animosity towards him. The fact is, this does not mean a thing, but the media will make it a huge story!
Part 2 on prices coming soon
Friday, October 17, 2008
PRICES Part one
One of the toughest classes I had (at my surprise) in college was The History of Economic Theory. The thing that was toughest to understand was the history of setting prices on goods. How to come up or set a price for a good has been debated and studied for centuries especially since the 1700's when the study of economics really began with Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations book came out. Smith is considered the "Father of Capitalism" some call him the "Father of Economics". I am now going to do the best I can to explain why prices are set the way they are today and answer some recent questions and complaints from friends of mine who do not understand why gas prices have fluctuated so much lately and is there manipulation going on.
Should prices be set just above cost? This way the producer will make just a little profit to pay him for his work and pay him enough to cover his cost. Should prices be set exactly at cost? Should government set prices? Should government subsidize or help pay for important goods so that consumers or citizens can pay less for a good they need since the government is helping pay for part of it? All interesting questions but they are the wrong questions. The question should be: In relation to setting prices what is the most efficient way to get goods produced, allocated or spread throughout the economy, and bought by customers to satisfy their needs and want. In other words: Supply and Demand. I find the theory of Supply and Demand one of the most interesting concepts in the world. I know I must be a geek but so be it. In a true free market (which has shown to be the most efficient way of allocating resources) prices are set wherever producers want to put them..... but not exactly. What do you mean Jess "but not exactly"? Consumers can buy products at whatever price they want to by telling the producer "NO" by not buying their good at that current price. In a free market there is competition and only very very few technical monopolies and thus competition will allow consumers to have the most power in the economy not the producer. This is because there are far more of them! So the consumer can not be taken advantage of in a true free market.
Producers want to make as much as they can but if they charge too much they will not have buyers and thus go out of business. This is why Wal-mart has been so successful in selling for cheap and thus other businesses that charge more are put out of business. Not by Wal-mart. But put out of business by US the consumer who chooses to buy from Wal-Mart instead of them. Prices thus are set by a market of producers (the suppliers) and consumers (the demanders). Now lets apply this to prices in our economy.
Economist that think like I do, do not care about how much it cost to make something and thus producers should make a little profit to pay them for their services. They care about what people are demanding, thus what needs to be produced, and the price can determine both of these things. How? The higher the price the more suppliers will make of that good because they can make a lot of money. Plus that higher price serves another great function. It curves demand for that good. In other words, if the price is high, because there is a lot of demand for it, you will buy less of it because at a high price you will only buy what you need, not necessarily what you want. The good news is that because of this action, there is more of the good to go around to ALL people that need it. Back to that first good thing. The higher the price the more that good will be produced. This means what people demand the most will be made the most and quickest so that consumers can get it and producers can make a buck. Or in this case, a lot of bucks. But in the long term, that means the supply will rise, and eventually over take demand, and thus producers will lower prices to sell off their extra supply. This is why goods that are made are expensive at first (video games, new types of technology like computers and cars, medicine, etc...) and then later the price falls. Then a new, better technology comes out, the price of the older technology falls even more, but the new goods price is high, and the same thing happens all over again.
In the next posts I will explain why this is good, and its effects on gas prices, and why so many Americans complain about price gougers, and manipulation and so forth.
Should prices be set just above cost? This way the producer will make just a little profit to pay him for his work and pay him enough to cover his cost. Should prices be set exactly at cost? Should government set prices? Should government subsidize or help pay for important goods so that consumers or citizens can pay less for a good they need since the government is helping pay for part of it? All interesting questions but they are the wrong questions. The question should be: In relation to setting prices what is the most efficient way to get goods produced, allocated or spread throughout the economy, and bought by customers to satisfy their needs and want. In other words: Supply and Demand. I find the theory of Supply and Demand one of the most interesting concepts in the world. I know I must be a geek but so be it. In a true free market (which has shown to be the most efficient way of allocating resources) prices are set wherever producers want to put them..... but not exactly. What do you mean Jess "but not exactly"? Consumers can buy products at whatever price they want to by telling the producer "NO" by not buying their good at that current price. In a free market there is competition and only very very few technical monopolies and thus competition will allow consumers to have the most power in the economy not the producer. This is because there are far more of them! So the consumer can not be taken advantage of in a true free market.
Producers want to make as much as they can but if they charge too much they will not have buyers and thus go out of business. This is why Wal-mart has been so successful in selling for cheap and thus other businesses that charge more are put out of business. Not by Wal-mart. But put out of business by US the consumer who chooses to buy from Wal-Mart instead of them. Prices thus are set by a market of producers (the suppliers) and consumers (the demanders). Now lets apply this to prices in our economy.
Economist that think like I do, do not care about how much it cost to make something and thus producers should make a little profit to pay them for their services. They care about what people are demanding, thus what needs to be produced, and the price can determine both of these things. How? The higher the price the more suppliers will make of that good because they can make a lot of money. Plus that higher price serves another great function. It curves demand for that good. In other words, if the price is high, because there is a lot of demand for it, you will buy less of it because at a high price you will only buy what you need, not necessarily what you want. The good news is that because of this action, there is more of the good to go around to ALL people that need it. Back to that first good thing. The higher the price the more that good will be produced. This means what people demand the most will be made the most and quickest so that consumers can get it and producers can make a buck. Or in this case, a lot of bucks. But in the long term, that means the supply will rise, and eventually over take demand, and thus producers will lower prices to sell off their extra supply. This is why goods that are made are expensive at first (video games, new types of technology like computers and cars, medicine, etc...) and then later the price falls. Then a new, better technology comes out, the price of the older technology falls even more, but the new goods price is high, and the same thing happens all over again.
In the next posts I will explain why this is good, and its effects on gas prices, and why so many Americans complain about price gougers, and manipulation and so forth.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Barack Obama's Friends
If your not dead or hate your country to a point that you don't pay a bit attention to our government, then you have probably been hearing a lot about Obama's connection to the Great American William Ayers, The Community Organization of Acorn, and of course this brings back up one of America's great Evangelicals The Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Ok so Ayers is a terrorist and Wright is a racist, anti-American, Socialist so they are not great people. For you who do not keep up with it closely lets talk about these organizations, people, and the significance of it to the Presidency.
William Ayers was a leader and in fact co-founder of the Weather Underground which was a group of people who became domestic Terrorist and blew things up. Ayers and Obama met early on in his political career about Education reform. Ayers believes that our education system needs to be reformed in a way that students are taught about the evils of Capitalism (which made our nation rich), and to radicalize their thinking to change everything about America. Ayers is a Marxist. Obama met with him about education reform but also to jump start his political career! Ayers is from Illinois and has donated to his election bids early on in his career. Both of them have also served on anti-poverty boards together. This should be a problem for Obama as Ayers is against everything that has made our country so rich and has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history. Ayers is a believer in Communism. Obama has some tendencies to agree with those principles as well. He was a marxist early on in his career. For you who don't know what I mean by marxist, Karl Marx is considered the "father of communism". This is scary to anyone that knows the smallest amount about economics!
Acorn is a community organization that specializes in getting poor and minority families in homes and helps get people registered to vote. Since they deal with mostly inner-city, poor families, this would mean they register likely liberal democrats to vote. They have been known to participate in voter fraud as well. I will not dive into that part of their association that much. But they are a group that also lobbies congressmen to be tough on banks to make loans to poor people. They are a group that supports laws like the Community Reinvestment Act that I mentioned in a past blog, which was the first of government interference in the free market of housing, which has led to this so called "crisis" we have today. The Free market did not cause this, government interference by creating laws that forced banks to make bad loans did. Obama has worked with them closely before. They too are a very radical leftist organization.
These associations bring up other past associations that Obama has had, particularly with his Pastor-Jeremiah Wright. This should not be a surprise to most of you. Obama is a leftist and is one of the most liberal politicians in the country. In fact he is historically a radical leftist himself and only appears slightly more moderate than people like Ayers because he is a great politician. These are important issues that McCain should have been hammering on long ago. But he has to do it in the right way. Don't just attack Obama because he was friendly with an unrepentant terrorist. Explain that his association with him was over his political career, especially in the field of education reform. Then explain the kind of reform that Ayers and thus Obama really want. Obama can't claim that he wants these extreme changes but if McCain makes the obvious connection, he can explain what Obama really wants. Then explain in a savvy fashion the housing crisis and how bad laws led to this. Then explain that as President, these laws would be eliminated and this housing crisis would never happen again.
If McCain does this and hammers it home, he still has a chance to be elected President. He has a lot of things working against him. Obama is a better politician than him, the mainstream media is supportive of Obama, Young people are so perverted in their education about economics and history that they are too ignorant to know better until they are older and enter the real world (this is why so many switch from Democrats to Republicans within ten years upon graduation). Young people are beginning to vote now, this helps Obama. But McCain can hammer this home, demand interviews, show passion, and explain how radical Obama and his friends are. Explain that our founding fathers and even the beloved Democrat- Franklin Roosevelt would never associate with Obama themselves. Our founders would not have allowed him to even participate in the developement of our great nation even. I doubt he will do this. But I'm praying he does!
Ok so Ayers is a terrorist and Wright is a racist, anti-American, Socialist so they are not great people. For you who do not keep up with it closely lets talk about these organizations, people, and the significance of it to the Presidency.
William Ayers was a leader and in fact co-founder of the Weather Underground which was a group of people who became domestic Terrorist and blew things up. Ayers and Obama met early on in his political career about Education reform. Ayers believes that our education system needs to be reformed in a way that students are taught about the evils of Capitalism (which made our nation rich), and to radicalize their thinking to change everything about America. Ayers is a Marxist. Obama met with him about education reform but also to jump start his political career! Ayers is from Illinois and has donated to his election bids early on in his career. Both of them have also served on anti-poverty boards together. This should be a problem for Obama as Ayers is against everything that has made our country so rich and has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history. Ayers is a believer in Communism. Obama has some tendencies to agree with those principles as well. He was a marxist early on in his career. For you who don't know what I mean by marxist, Karl Marx is considered the "father of communism". This is scary to anyone that knows the smallest amount about economics!
Acorn is a community organization that specializes in getting poor and minority families in homes and helps get people registered to vote. Since they deal with mostly inner-city, poor families, this would mean they register likely liberal democrats to vote. They have been known to participate in voter fraud as well. I will not dive into that part of their association that much. But they are a group that also lobbies congressmen to be tough on banks to make loans to poor people. They are a group that supports laws like the Community Reinvestment Act that I mentioned in a past blog, which was the first of government interference in the free market of housing, which has led to this so called "crisis" we have today. The Free market did not cause this, government interference by creating laws that forced banks to make bad loans did. Obama has worked with them closely before. They too are a very radical leftist organization.
These associations bring up other past associations that Obama has had, particularly with his Pastor-Jeremiah Wright. This should not be a surprise to most of you. Obama is a leftist and is one of the most liberal politicians in the country. In fact he is historically a radical leftist himself and only appears slightly more moderate than people like Ayers because he is a great politician. These are important issues that McCain should have been hammering on long ago. But he has to do it in the right way. Don't just attack Obama because he was friendly with an unrepentant terrorist. Explain that his association with him was over his political career, especially in the field of education reform. Then explain the kind of reform that Ayers and thus Obama really want. Obama can't claim that he wants these extreme changes but if McCain makes the obvious connection, he can explain what Obama really wants. Then explain in a savvy fashion the housing crisis and how bad laws led to this. Then explain that as President, these laws would be eliminated and this housing crisis would never happen again.
If McCain does this and hammers it home, he still has a chance to be elected President. He has a lot of things working against him. Obama is a better politician than him, the mainstream media is supportive of Obama, Young people are so perverted in their education about economics and history that they are too ignorant to know better until they are older and enter the real world (this is why so many switch from Democrats to Republicans within ten years upon graduation). Young people are beginning to vote now, this helps Obama. But McCain can hammer this home, demand interviews, show passion, and explain how radical Obama and his friends are. Explain that our founding fathers and even the beloved Democrat- Franklin Roosevelt would never associate with Obama themselves. Our founders would not have allowed him to even participate in the developement of our great nation even. I doubt he will do this. But I'm praying he does!
Monday, October 13, 2008
Why I am so Angry!
"We need to punish those "greedy" Ceo's at those financial institutions!" "Down with Greed! and the high salaries of CEO's!" "To %$*@ with those rotten, rich, greedy Sons of $&#*$&@!" Ok the last couple phrases are used on far left websites but that is not what has me angry. It is hearing Bill O'reilly, Political Analyst Dick Morris, and of course Presidential Candidate John McCain condemning the same people. Let me put in perspective what they are saying in essence. "I have the knowledge and understanding of this 13 trillion dollar economy to know exactly what you should be paid for being the CEO of a massive financial institution." "I know better and by God you do not deserve what you are getting paid!" How conceded can someone be to believe they truly know this information. The problem I have recently is that it is conservatives like the men I mentioned above doing the complaining. Why are they complaining? Because it makes the American Ignorant Citizen feel good that someone is fussing at those rich Entrepreneurs!
Put yourself in this situation. Your boss tells you that you can come to work late, make bad decisions, and not work that hard and you will still make your current salary and keep your job. Or you are a manager of a specific branch of a very large company and the head of that company comes to you and says whatever decisions you make, if you win that is great, if you lose money in the decision, don't worry we will give your branch the profits from other branches to offset it. Oh by the way your job is guaranteed. How would you work? Would you work extra hard? Would you think twice before making decisions? No. Well that is what the government has done. It has guaranteed bailouts for companies that make bad decisions on loans. That means you win whether those loans are paid back or not. Thus there is no risk in decision making and no cost in making the wrong decision. How can you blame a CEO from running a company that gives loans to almost anyone when that is the guarantee? I would do it that way. Besides, these politicians that are calling these guys names are the same politicians that have pressured those CEO's and institutions into giving risky loans to risky borrowers for the sake of "Social Reconstruction." Don't get me started on the laws that do this for the sake of helping the needy, poor, minority, and other people who would not get a loan in a true free market.
In recent blogs I have covered the reasons for so many bad loans being made. I will not explain all that over again there. It is the fact that so many people are so mad at the wrong people that has me so angry! It shows the ignorance of economics and the current situation that has me so angry.
These Greedy people are loved when those companies make a lot of money and employ tons of people and allow millions of people to have loans at great rates. But when times get hard we hate them. If your wondering if these CEO's deserve this much money then go back and read my columns on "Why CEO's Make So Much Money." I think it is a three part series and it will help you understand. If the market calls for millions to be paid and these Multi-Billion dollar institutions need someone that makes multi-billion dollar decisions it might be worth paying them multi-millions to get a good CEO. Even if there is a risk in doing so. Most of my readers are athletes and probably like the Tennessee Vols. If Coach Fulmer was to be replaced do you think a proven Coordinator looking for a head coaching position would take the job if Athletic Director Hamilton said if you win 10 games we will pay you 2 million and give you an extension. If you win 9 or less then you have not done what we want and thus you will be paid nothing. Would anyone take that job that was a pretty good coach? No! For one, there would be far better offers somewhere else. The risk of no pay would not be worth it. Thus you have to guarantee these guys some money. Besides, if every CEO in the world gave back all their salaries to help pay for the losses the economy during this housing and financial crisis, it would pay for less than 1% of it. SO POLITICIANS, TAKE CARE OF THE OTHER 99% OF THE PROBLEM BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THE 1% YOU GREEDY POLITICAL MORONS!
If you were mad or are still mad about the current situation and blame it on the free market and the lack of regulation please comment on this blog entry. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Put yourself in this situation. Your boss tells you that you can come to work late, make bad decisions, and not work that hard and you will still make your current salary and keep your job. Or you are a manager of a specific branch of a very large company and the head of that company comes to you and says whatever decisions you make, if you win that is great, if you lose money in the decision, don't worry we will give your branch the profits from other branches to offset it. Oh by the way your job is guaranteed. How would you work? Would you work extra hard? Would you think twice before making decisions? No. Well that is what the government has done. It has guaranteed bailouts for companies that make bad decisions on loans. That means you win whether those loans are paid back or not. Thus there is no risk in decision making and no cost in making the wrong decision. How can you blame a CEO from running a company that gives loans to almost anyone when that is the guarantee? I would do it that way. Besides, these politicians that are calling these guys names are the same politicians that have pressured those CEO's and institutions into giving risky loans to risky borrowers for the sake of "Social Reconstruction." Don't get me started on the laws that do this for the sake of helping the needy, poor, minority, and other people who would not get a loan in a true free market.
In recent blogs I have covered the reasons for so many bad loans being made. I will not explain all that over again there. It is the fact that so many people are so mad at the wrong people that has me so angry! It shows the ignorance of economics and the current situation that has me so angry.
These Greedy people are loved when those companies make a lot of money and employ tons of people and allow millions of people to have loans at great rates. But when times get hard we hate them. If your wondering if these CEO's deserve this much money then go back and read my columns on "Why CEO's Make So Much Money." I think it is a three part series and it will help you understand. If the market calls for millions to be paid and these Multi-Billion dollar institutions need someone that makes multi-billion dollar decisions it might be worth paying them multi-millions to get a good CEO. Even if there is a risk in doing so. Most of my readers are athletes and probably like the Tennessee Vols. If Coach Fulmer was to be replaced do you think a proven Coordinator looking for a head coaching position would take the job if Athletic Director Hamilton said if you win 10 games we will pay you 2 million and give you an extension. If you win 9 or less then you have not done what we want and thus you will be paid nothing. Would anyone take that job that was a pretty good coach? No! For one, there would be far better offers somewhere else. The risk of no pay would not be worth it. Thus you have to guarantee these guys some money. Besides, if every CEO in the world gave back all their salaries to help pay for the losses the economy during this housing and financial crisis, it would pay for less than 1% of it. SO POLITICIANS, TAKE CARE OF THE OTHER 99% OF THE PROBLEM BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THE 1% YOU GREEDY POLITICAL MORONS!
If you were mad or are still mad about the current situation and blame it on the free market and the lack of regulation please comment on this blog entry. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Good News with Economy
LOL I kind of laugh reading my own title. The Dow is below 9000 for the first time in years! Unemployment is believed to rise a few more tenths to around 6.3 percent which is getting kind of high for America. And no one can get credit and yet I say there is good news. Well there is. Despite our government causing the current economic turmoil with terrible laws beginning with the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1970's, I believe there are a couple good things to point out here.
Oil is down to below 85 dollars a barrel for the first time in a long time. This means that unless something happens, gas will be........... close to $2.50 by December. That is given the current global situation does not change, and there are no natural disasters that cause disruption in the supply of oil. So folks, expect to spend less on travel soon.
Secondly, the stock market has officially dropped some 20% which is a "correction" by definition. This means that there is a chance that the markets have bottomed out or are at least close to doing so. So get ready to reinvest. Warren Buffet is about to buy up a lot, you should too.
Don't get me wrong the next President will have low ratings. It might be a good thing for Obama to get elected. If he does what he says he will then he will cause this problem to be a lot worse like Roosevelt did. But maybe that means we won't have to put up with Democrats but for 4 years and then Rudy Guiliani or Bob Portman, or better yet, Bobby Jindel will run for President and this crap will turn around just in time for a true conservative to get elected. Bobby Jindel would be my man!
Oil is down to below 85 dollars a barrel for the first time in a long time. This means that unless something happens, gas will be........... close to $2.50 by December. That is given the current global situation does not change, and there are no natural disasters that cause disruption in the supply of oil. So folks, expect to spend less on travel soon.
Secondly, the stock market has officially dropped some 20% which is a "correction" by definition. This means that there is a chance that the markets have bottomed out or are at least close to doing so. So get ready to reinvest. Warren Buffet is about to buy up a lot, you should too.
Don't get me wrong the next President will have low ratings. It might be a good thing for Obama to get elected. If he does what he says he will then he will cause this problem to be a lot worse like Roosevelt did. But maybe that means we won't have to put up with Democrats but for 4 years and then Rudy Guiliani or Bob Portman, or better yet, Bobby Jindel will run for President and this crap will turn around just in time for a true conservative to get elected. Bobby Jindel would be my man!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Bailouts affect on oil prices
The recent bailout that I talked about in the last blog has done something that many people probably did not expect. I have discussed in my classroom and on this blog the issue with gas prices. There are many reasons that gas prices are so high. One of those reasons is the value of the American Dollar. When the American Dollar is weak, the prices of commodity items rises. When we buy something that is on the world market, the value of our dollar compared to other countries can effect the price to us. Thus commodity prices change. Commodities such as OIL.
The value of the dollar has risen lately and has helped contribute to the lowering of gas prices. Oil has dropped nearly $50 in the last couple months. Then just after this weekend the price jumped some $20 almost. Why? The value of the dollar. Now why did the value of the dollar go down so quickly? Our wonderful governments bailout of our financial markets. Thankyou Washington!! When the government bails a company out, they must get the money from somewhere. It is not in the already large government budget. SO they must either print the money or they must borrow it from other countries. Either way it adds money to our economy that would otherwise not be there. When money is added to the economy, the value of each dollar drops. Thus the price of commodities begin rise. Thankyou, Washington.
The value of the dollar has risen lately and has helped contribute to the lowering of gas prices. Oil has dropped nearly $50 in the last couple months. Then just after this weekend the price jumped some $20 almost. Why? The value of the dollar. Now why did the value of the dollar go down so quickly? Our wonderful governments bailout of our financial markets. Thankyou Washington!! When the government bails a company out, they must get the money from somewhere. It is not in the already large government budget. SO they must either print the money or they must borrow it from other countries. Either way it adds money to our economy that would otherwise not be there. When money is added to the economy, the value of each dollar drops. Thus the price of commodities begin rise. Thankyou, Washington.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Bailouts!
There is little that I hate more than a Bailout. I hate it when a referee bails a player out. When Chris Leak throws an interception at the end of the first half of the 2006 gator at vols football game, a referee should not call a roughing the passer call when there is very little contact on the pass. That play was a difference in the game. The same is true when government interferes with the market and bails a company out. Lets discuss the recent financial institution bailouts.
When Fannie Mae was created in 1938 and then Freddie Mac later, the purpose was to ensure that people who wanted loans could more easily get them. Fannie Mae was started during the Great Depression, which was caused by stupid government policy, and Freddie Mac was created because of what Wayne Winegarden calls "Corporate Social Responsibility" being combined with a for-profit business model. Government has a reason to make people happy and thus creates institutions to help them- "Corporate Social Responsibility." But does this in a market that is best ran by using for-profit businesses model that is now being interfered with. This interference in the economy creates unexpected consequences.
These government created and backed companies will buy up mortgages and loans from other institutions taking the risk off of them. This allows for more mortgages at lower interest rates from those intuitions. The issue is in the incentives created by these government institutions. Bad loans are made because the losses are protected by the government, meaning tax payer. When there is little or no risk involved, bad choices are made. This interferes with an otherwise free market. More investments are made into mortgages that should be made other places if it were not for the subsidized mortgage loans that have very low interest rates. This raises the interest rates for loans in other areas that would have more people wanting loans if it were not for the artificially low interest rates in the mortgage market. This thus slows down the economy in other sectors meaning the health of the housing market becomes even more vital to the overall economy. When the housing market then struggles the whole economy is hurt even worse. Thus our present situation.
This is why the housing bubble enlarged so much so quickly. Now that it has burst the government has bailed them out which adds to the easiness of making stupid loans in the future. Thus the economy will rebound in the next few years, more bad loans will be made, and in a decade or so the government will once again bail out these companies when that bubble bursts. I can not complain about the current bailout because without it a crisis would pursue. But we now need to get government out of the whole business of interfering with the free market. People should get loans based on income, credit history, work history, etc, and companies should start reaping the costs of making bad loans as well as the benefits. This means there will be no housing bubble forming, fewer people will buy homes, but we will not have massive downturns either in our markets and economies like we have now.
The only thing worse than a government ran operation is government interfering with otherwise free markets which have even a worse effect on the economy. I hope this is the last bailout I hear of in my lifetime. But I know that it will be one of many to come in our entitlement mentality nature that the government has created.
When Fannie Mae was created in 1938 and then Freddie Mac later, the purpose was to ensure that people who wanted loans could more easily get them. Fannie Mae was started during the Great Depression, which was caused by stupid government policy, and Freddie Mac was created because of what Wayne Winegarden calls "Corporate Social Responsibility" being combined with a for-profit business model. Government has a reason to make people happy and thus creates institutions to help them- "Corporate Social Responsibility." But does this in a market that is best ran by using for-profit businesses model that is now being interfered with. This interference in the economy creates unexpected consequences.
These government created and backed companies will buy up mortgages and loans from other institutions taking the risk off of them. This allows for more mortgages at lower interest rates from those intuitions. The issue is in the incentives created by these government institutions. Bad loans are made because the losses are protected by the government, meaning tax payer. When there is little or no risk involved, bad choices are made. This interferes with an otherwise free market. More investments are made into mortgages that should be made other places if it were not for the subsidized mortgage loans that have very low interest rates. This raises the interest rates for loans in other areas that would have more people wanting loans if it were not for the artificially low interest rates in the mortgage market. This thus slows down the economy in other sectors meaning the health of the housing market becomes even more vital to the overall economy. When the housing market then struggles the whole economy is hurt even worse. Thus our present situation.
This is why the housing bubble enlarged so much so quickly. Now that it has burst the government has bailed them out which adds to the easiness of making stupid loans in the future. Thus the economy will rebound in the next few years, more bad loans will be made, and in a decade or so the government will once again bail out these companies when that bubble bursts. I can not complain about the current bailout because without it a crisis would pursue. But we now need to get government out of the whole business of interfering with the free market. People should get loans based on income, credit history, work history, etc, and companies should start reaping the costs of making bad loans as well as the benefits. This means there will be no housing bubble forming, fewer people will buy homes, but we will not have massive downturns either in our markets and economies like we have now.
The only thing worse than a government ran operation is government interfering with otherwise free markets which have even a worse effect on the economy. I hope this is the last bailout I hear of in my lifetime. But I know that it will be one of many to come in our entitlement mentality nature that the government has created.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Fallacy of Government creating jobs
If anyone cares about their country and is old enough to vote, they have surely heard about Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama's plan to invest some 150 Billion dollars over 10 years in an effort to create "green" jobs that amount to some 5 million high paying positions. To most people this sounds like a very attractive idea and plan. But most people are ignorant of economic concepts so lets look into the fallacy of government creating new jobs.
The United State Government cannot "create" new jobs as in "create" new wealth like Obama and others try to claim. The fallacy in this argument is that Government does not create anything without destroying another. I have already lost some of you I'm sure so allow me to explain. Government owns no amount of money and thus can create nothing. It can only take what we have in the form of taxes and then do with that money what it wants instead of us doing what we would have wanted if we could have kept the money. This misunderstanding is known as the "Broken Window Fallacy". This analogy is in great timing. If Obama's plan made sense then it would also make sense to say that you are glad that hurricane Ike hit Texas because now there are many jobs that will be created to rebuild the homes and businesses that have been destroyed. The truth is yes jobs are available down there now to do this but those jobs have simply been transferred from one place to another to fix something that has been broken. When someone breaks a window a glass maker is paid to fix it. That is a job "created". But that money could have been spent somewhere else thus a job is also loss. That job might have actually created wealth instead of fixing something that has been broken.
The point is simple. Obama "creating" these 5 million jobs is not him creating wealth or anything that would benefit us. It is him diverting resources that could be spent somewhere else, to do what HE thinks is best. He believes that he and his politician crew and his advisers know what is best. That is why he is running for president. But the truth is that since the free market private sector has not created these green jobs already it means that those jobs must not be very efficient and in fact must be a waste of resources. If it were worth something, someone in the private market would have already been doing this work in order to earn high profits.
When Obama makes his beautiful speech about creating these "green" jobs, what he is really saying is this: "I know what is better to do with your money then you yourself know what to do." Obama wants to raise our taxes to pay for his programs because he believes that HE is smarter with OUR money that WE are. The question is not whether or not Obama is creating new jobs for the economy while also helping the environment. I just answered that. The question you have to ask yourself is "do I think Barack Obama knows what is better to do with MY money than I do?"
The United State Government cannot "create" new jobs as in "create" new wealth like Obama and others try to claim. The fallacy in this argument is that Government does not create anything without destroying another. I have already lost some of you I'm sure so allow me to explain. Government owns no amount of money and thus can create nothing. It can only take what we have in the form of taxes and then do with that money what it wants instead of us doing what we would have wanted if we could have kept the money. This misunderstanding is known as the "Broken Window Fallacy". This analogy is in great timing. If Obama's plan made sense then it would also make sense to say that you are glad that hurricane Ike hit Texas because now there are many jobs that will be created to rebuild the homes and businesses that have been destroyed. The truth is yes jobs are available down there now to do this but those jobs have simply been transferred from one place to another to fix something that has been broken. When someone breaks a window a glass maker is paid to fix it. That is a job "created". But that money could have been spent somewhere else thus a job is also loss. That job might have actually created wealth instead of fixing something that has been broken.
The point is simple. Obama "creating" these 5 million jobs is not him creating wealth or anything that would benefit us. It is him diverting resources that could be spent somewhere else, to do what HE thinks is best. He believes that he and his politician crew and his advisers know what is best. That is why he is running for president. But the truth is that since the free market private sector has not created these green jobs already it means that those jobs must not be very efficient and in fact must be a waste of resources. If it were worth something, someone in the private market would have already been doing this work in order to earn high profits.
When Obama makes his beautiful speech about creating these "green" jobs, what he is really saying is this: "I know what is better to do with your money then you yourself know what to do." Obama wants to raise our taxes to pay for his programs because he believes that HE is smarter with OUR money that WE are. The question is not whether or not Obama is creating new jobs for the economy while also helping the environment. I just answered that. The question you have to ask yourself is "do I think Barack Obama knows what is better to do with MY money than I do?"
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Why government should not pay to rebuild disaster areas
As we approach the middle of "hurricane season" lets discuss the fallacy of protecting and rebuilding areas that have been hit with terrible disaster. It was only a few years ago that Hurricane Katrina all but destroyed the great city of New Orleans. No doubt the people in New Orleans were hurting and are thankful for the help Uncle Sam has given them. Allow me to discuss to you why the federal government is responsible for many of those deaths in New Orleans. It is not the typical liberal talking point such as: "George Bush does not like Black People." Recently charged felon Kayne West knows about as much about government and George Bush as I do about his rap music! I will address this from an educated point of view not an ideological ignorant point of view.
As good and kind as disaster relief and federal flood insurance sounds, it is once again an example of well intentioned policies with terrible unintended consequences. No doubt these programs help people get their feet back on the ground and their lives running again. I am not blinded to the benefits of these two programs. However, politicians typically only talk about the benefits of their programs while ignoring the costs. The costs are not as obvious and thus voters who are ignorant of economics will vote for the candidate that chooses to help them in the heat of a moment instead of studying the future consequences of those programs. When government guarantees disaster relief for people, residents have no incentive of living in an area that would be efficient (safe) for living. Meaning, when you guarantee someones security, their sense of self-responsibility deteriorates. If government did not guarantee the rebuilding of your home, many people who choose to build and live in areas that are prone to disasters such as floods and hurricanes would choose instead to live elsewhere. When government guarantees their financial security such as rebuilding their home why would they make a wise decision in living in a more safe area? In fact this policy only leads to more and more people moving into these sometimes beautiful but truly dangerous areas. This of course raises the cost of repairing these areas as many more people now live there and own homes that need rebuilding. New Orleans is under sea level but that should not scare anyone away from building there if they know that the tax payer is going to pick up their tab when the disaster comes.
About 30 years the government decided to collect some of that money by offering federal flood insurance. This way the residents pick up part of the costs. Residents are charged a few hundred dollars for their premium to insure their house that is built next to the ocean or next to rivers that flood regularly. In a pure free market these insurance premiums should cost thousands of dollars each month to truly cover the risk involved in building in those areas. That is why government provides it. If a service were efficient the private sector would usually fund it as people can make money providing that service. When government gets involved it is often because they are providing a service that no one needs or desires when charged a proper price. Since government collects trillions of dollars in taxes, it is easy for them to pick up that tab.
The fact is if government did not offer these benefits to such people, those people would not have lived in those areas. True, New Orleans would not be the exciting city that it is today. But other cities in the area would simply be bigger and offer the fun that New Orleans offers. True, many of the people living in beautiful home would not have the same great view they have while living in an elevated home on the beach. But our taxes would be much lower instead of protecting these morons who choose to live there only because they know that when that hurricane comes as it does every 5 years, they will be protected and covered. The fact is, if government did not have such a stupid policy, those poor people who were killed on that terrible day when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, would not have been living there to begin with.
As Hurricane Ike closes in on Texas and other gulf region states, be reminded that although I believe that people need charity when unexpected disasters take place, having government incentivize them to live in dangerous areas by bailing them out when their home is destroyed is not a good policy when adding up the benefits and costs.
As good and kind as disaster relief and federal flood insurance sounds, it is once again an example of well intentioned policies with terrible unintended consequences. No doubt these programs help people get their feet back on the ground and their lives running again. I am not blinded to the benefits of these two programs. However, politicians typically only talk about the benefits of their programs while ignoring the costs. The costs are not as obvious and thus voters who are ignorant of economics will vote for the candidate that chooses to help them in the heat of a moment instead of studying the future consequences of those programs. When government guarantees disaster relief for people, residents have no incentive of living in an area that would be efficient (safe) for living. Meaning, when you guarantee someones security, their sense of self-responsibility deteriorates. If government did not guarantee the rebuilding of your home, many people who choose to build and live in areas that are prone to disasters such as floods and hurricanes would choose instead to live elsewhere. When government guarantees their financial security such as rebuilding their home why would they make a wise decision in living in a more safe area? In fact this policy only leads to more and more people moving into these sometimes beautiful but truly dangerous areas. This of course raises the cost of repairing these areas as many more people now live there and own homes that need rebuilding. New Orleans is under sea level but that should not scare anyone away from building there if they know that the tax payer is going to pick up their tab when the disaster comes.
About 30 years the government decided to collect some of that money by offering federal flood insurance. This way the residents pick up part of the costs. Residents are charged a few hundred dollars for their premium to insure their house that is built next to the ocean or next to rivers that flood regularly. In a pure free market these insurance premiums should cost thousands of dollars each month to truly cover the risk involved in building in those areas. That is why government provides it. If a service were efficient the private sector would usually fund it as people can make money providing that service. When government gets involved it is often because they are providing a service that no one needs or desires when charged a proper price. Since government collects trillions of dollars in taxes, it is easy for them to pick up that tab.
The fact is if government did not offer these benefits to such people, those people would not have lived in those areas. True, New Orleans would not be the exciting city that it is today. But other cities in the area would simply be bigger and offer the fun that New Orleans offers. True, many of the people living in beautiful home would not have the same great view they have while living in an elevated home on the beach. But our taxes would be much lower instead of protecting these morons who choose to live there only because they know that when that hurricane comes as it does every 5 years, they will be protected and covered. The fact is, if government did not have such a stupid policy, those poor people who were killed on that terrible day when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, would not have been living there to begin with.
As Hurricane Ike closes in on Texas and other gulf region states, be reminded that although I believe that people need charity when unexpected disasters take place, having government incentivize them to live in dangerous areas by bailing them out when their home is destroyed is not a good policy when adding up the benefits and costs.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Fixing Our Education System - Conclusion
I'm excited about getting comments from time to time on my blog. It is encouraging that more people are now reading it. I will address the most recent comment on my first blog on education and summarize what our education system would look like under this transformation. This will be written as if I were explaining my education reform in a speech as a candidate for president of the United States. Enjoy:
Ladies and Gentlemen I propose to you that we allow all parents who have children attending school the right to choose where they would like to send their child to school. In whatever state you live in, you can now send your child to any school in that state. I propose a voucher system that represents an amount of money that will follow your child where he or she attend. The amount of that voucher will be based upon the average spent last year per child in that county plus the growth of inflation each year. If you want to send your children to a christian school of some sort, so be it. If you would rather send him or her to our now privately ran but publicly funded schools, so be it. Where you want them to go, they go.
The voucher will represent a specific amount of money that the school you choose can exchange for money from the government. The school can choose to charge whatever they feel is needed to properly run their school. If they can impress parents and run it for less than the voucher is worth, they can keep the excess money to make improvements or choose to give it back to YOU, the parent, as an incentive to keep your child there. At any time, if you feel that the school is not living up to its responsibility of educating your child, feel free to move your child to another school of your choosing. This will bring about the same competition to our education system that is already thriving and successful in making our economy the envy of the world- even during downturns like we are currently having. This competition will breed achievement. If your school's owner hires a principal that believes using advanced technology to teach your child to learn then so be it. If the principal prefers a student centered school system that uses group learning and active learning, so be it. If you would rather go to a more traditional teaching school that is mostly teacher-centered with discussion and lecture, so be it. It is your choice. In fact most schools will use different strategies for different subjects depending on what has been found to be the most successful strategy.
For you students that prefer the technical path as opposed to the universal path, I have tremendous news for you. With this added competition, owners of schools will begin to set up schools that specialize in technical studies. No longer will each school have a sub-par technical path with shop classes that get sub-standard supplies to use in the education of your child. Schools will specialize in this area and students from all surrounding areas will attend that school bringing in large amounts of cash flow, supporting many different fields of learning, and the best teachers of all crafts to one spot to maximize the potential of developing those skills needed for the workplace. No longer will college or technical college be required by most businesses looking for these skills as students leaving high school will be schooled beyond their years in those fields as they all have had the best teachers and best resources to learn from. With businesses demanding their services due to seeing the fruits of their work in high school, your child will be able to go straight into a high paying job immediately upon graduation.
Schools will now adapt to the needs of the economy whether that means more subject matter with technological skills that are needed to prepare students for today's economy or some other skill that is in large demand from our society. No longer will teacher unions and government officials in Washington or your state capital make these tough decisions requiring lots of information that no government employee can possibly obtain. Instead the free market will make changes as the principals and owners will have the freedom to do what they believe is best for the student. This of course will be based on what employers are telling them. Principles will now be incentivized to travel to companies and asking what employers are looking for in a child's education. Change and adaptation will be done much quicker now that the market of millions of people's needs will bring about this change instead of a group of government paid employees in some room trying to figure out what changes to make in our education system.
I will close with this. Athletes who would love to play for the best coaches and best schools for their sports. No longer are you forced to attend a school that does not care about a particular sport and keep coaches around that continue to fail their athletes in not helping them reach their full potential. You can choose where to attend school and thus what coach and system to play in. Imagine the resources athletes that will now be available to you who are committed to playing at the best schools. Those schools will invest into the best equitment to get you to come there so they can receive that voucher.
Teachers, I have wonderful news. You will no longer be paid based upon experience and education alone. Your pay will be merit paid. Principals that need to improve the history, English, math, science, or any other department in order to improve the quality of their education to impress parents to bring their students there, will pay you what they need in order to get you to teach for them. If you work hard and are a successful teacher, the better schools with the more students going and thus receiving the most funding, will now pay you what you demand mixed with how much they really want you. Attention math teachers and science teachers, you will be paid more than the physical education and history teachers in that your job qualifications are harder and in lower supply. This way we will never have a shortage of teachers in tough areas of study that few decide to study in college. As these areas will now pay more, more students will receive those degrees. Coaches, you will be paid what the school has to pay you to get you to come there. No longer will a school board be voting what they think you should be paid. Those people who have the most information for what that school needs to impress the parents and students will be making those kinds of decisions. Thus the best hardest working coaches, teachers, and principles will be paid the best.
Ladies and gentlemen, elect me as President, and I will put you and your child first, not the government officials and teacher unions. Thankyou, and God bless you and God bless or students.
JESS
Ladies and Gentlemen I propose to you that we allow all parents who have children attending school the right to choose where they would like to send their child to school. In whatever state you live in, you can now send your child to any school in that state. I propose a voucher system that represents an amount of money that will follow your child where he or she attend. The amount of that voucher will be based upon the average spent last year per child in that county plus the growth of inflation each year. If you want to send your children to a christian school of some sort, so be it. If you would rather send him or her to our now privately ran but publicly funded schools, so be it. Where you want them to go, they go.
The voucher will represent a specific amount of money that the school you choose can exchange for money from the government. The school can choose to charge whatever they feel is needed to properly run their school. If they can impress parents and run it for less than the voucher is worth, they can keep the excess money to make improvements or choose to give it back to YOU, the parent, as an incentive to keep your child there. At any time, if you feel that the school is not living up to its responsibility of educating your child, feel free to move your child to another school of your choosing. This will bring about the same competition to our education system that is already thriving and successful in making our economy the envy of the world- even during downturns like we are currently having. This competition will breed achievement. If your school's owner hires a principal that believes using advanced technology to teach your child to learn then so be it. If the principal prefers a student centered school system that uses group learning and active learning, so be it. If you would rather go to a more traditional teaching school that is mostly teacher-centered with discussion and lecture, so be it. It is your choice. In fact most schools will use different strategies for different subjects depending on what has been found to be the most successful strategy.
For you students that prefer the technical path as opposed to the universal path, I have tremendous news for you. With this added competition, owners of schools will begin to set up schools that specialize in technical studies. No longer will each school have a sub-par technical path with shop classes that get sub-standard supplies to use in the education of your child. Schools will specialize in this area and students from all surrounding areas will attend that school bringing in large amounts of cash flow, supporting many different fields of learning, and the best teachers of all crafts to one spot to maximize the potential of developing those skills needed for the workplace. No longer will college or technical college be required by most businesses looking for these skills as students leaving high school will be schooled beyond their years in those fields as they all have had the best teachers and best resources to learn from. With businesses demanding their services due to seeing the fruits of their work in high school, your child will be able to go straight into a high paying job immediately upon graduation.
Schools will now adapt to the needs of the economy whether that means more subject matter with technological skills that are needed to prepare students for today's economy or some other skill that is in large demand from our society. No longer will teacher unions and government officials in Washington or your state capital make these tough decisions requiring lots of information that no government employee can possibly obtain. Instead the free market will make changes as the principals and owners will have the freedom to do what they believe is best for the student. This of course will be based on what employers are telling them. Principles will now be incentivized to travel to companies and asking what employers are looking for in a child's education. Change and adaptation will be done much quicker now that the market of millions of people's needs will bring about this change instead of a group of government paid employees in some room trying to figure out what changes to make in our education system.
I will close with this. Athletes who would love to play for the best coaches and best schools for their sports. No longer are you forced to attend a school that does not care about a particular sport and keep coaches around that continue to fail their athletes in not helping them reach their full potential. You can choose where to attend school and thus what coach and system to play in. Imagine the resources athletes that will now be available to you who are committed to playing at the best schools. Those schools will invest into the best equitment to get you to come there so they can receive that voucher.
Teachers, I have wonderful news. You will no longer be paid based upon experience and education alone. Your pay will be merit paid. Principals that need to improve the history, English, math, science, or any other department in order to improve the quality of their education to impress parents to bring their students there, will pay you what they need in order to get you to teach for them. If you work hard and are a successful teacher, the better schools with the more students going and thus receiving the most funding, will now pay you what you demand mixed with how much they really want you. Attention math teachers and science teachers, you will be paid more than the physical education and history teachers in that your job qualifications are harder and in lower supply. This way we will never have a shortage of teachers in tough areas of study that few decide to study in college. As these areas will now pay more, more students will receive those degrees. Coaches, you will be paid what the school has to pay you to get you to come there. No longer will a school board be voting what they think you should be paid. Those people who have the most information for what that school needs to impress the parents and students will be making those kinds of decisions. Thus the best hardest working coaches, teachers, and principles will be paid the best.
Ladies and gentlemen, elect me as President, and I will put you and your child first, not the government officials and teacher unions. Thankyou, and God bless you and God bless or students.
JESS
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Barack Obama Convention Speech (refined)
MY FRIENDS PLEASE READ COMPLETELY THROUGH. THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON BARACK OBAMA'S MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH HE WILL EVER GIVE:
Due to living with a man who has no interest in politics whatsoever, I had to record his speech on my DVR and have just now finished watching it. These are my comments on just a few parts of his speech:
I find it interesting that he addresses his "great friend Dick Durbin" in the opening line of his speech. Dick Durbin is only a senator who compared, without apology, our troops to Nazi troops of World War II. Barack Obama then addresses when he got his start in politics. I would have advised him not to do this as it demonstrates to us his lack of experience and how short of a time he has really spent serving our country. He is without a doubt the least experienced candidate our nation has ever had for president.
Obama then mentions that our economy is in turmoil. Last quarter we had a slightly more than 3% growth in GDP despite democrats and pundits, as well as the mainstream media talking heads saying that we were in a recession. Many European countries that those idiot praise so highly wish they could boast of a 3% growth in GDP last quarter. Oh and we are in a slow down. But a 3% growth during a slow down with employment still around 5.5% - 6% and actually looking to not rise too much higher is one heck of an economy during a downturn. We only wish that the downturns of business cycles were this good a decade or two ago. Don't get me wrong. These are tough times for some people. There is no doubt that the economy is not as strong as it has been in other times. But we are in a downturn to correct a business cycle. In just over a year from now things will be racing forward again and jobs will be getting created. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is some gloom and doom time when our bad times are far better than most country's good times.
He then wants to blame President Bush for the "housing crisis" mess. That is rediculous. There are economic reasons for this so called crisis. People bought too much! Interest rates were kept too low by the Federal reserve and people got loans that they thought would be cheap forever. But when interest rates go back up, these people find out that their prices just went up. People should not have stretched their budget so far. If there are any politicians to blame it is liberal like Obama that pass laws that pressure banks to give loans to people they would not truly want to give loans to. This will also turn around. The value of our homes are going down. This is true. But the value of our homes were too high not long ago. This is a correction. There are many hurt by this including people in my family. But there are many people who are helped. And those who did not strecth themselves too much and keep their houses which values have dropped, well they will see those value come back up shortly. Don't blame Bush that is ignorant.
He then rediculed free trade! Really? Free trade has made us so much richer. Look at what you buy that does not come from America. If it was made here it would cost a lot more. Now ask yourself how much less of that stuff you would have if it cost more. Free trade sends some jobs overseas. But it creates more jobs for the future and it gives more people things at cheaper prices. I do not want to protect the few jobs and hurt all people who have to buy those products.
Obama then criticizes our government for sitting on their hands while a city drowned? He actually got this one right. Democratic governments in New Orleans led by Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana were in control of those operations. Blanco did not allow the federal government come in until it was too late. I'm assuming you are talking about the local DEMOCRATIC governments right? Of course he was referring to the Federal response but anyone who understands our government system of Federalism knows that it is primarily the local governments responsiblilty for disasters such as that.
He then talks about how McCain does not understand everyday American people. I believe it is McCain that does townhall meetings where questions are asked and he answers them to and from local citizens. You Mr. Obama, give speeches in front of thousands without taking questions using a teleprompter. That is unless it is a taped interview with the always grilling Katie Couric, Brian Williams or maybe Bob Gibson.
He then fusses that McCain supported tax cuts for big corporations but not 100,000,000 Americans. Really? He supported the Bush tax cuts which gave a tax cut to almost everyone but those who do not pay taxes. The top 50 percent in this nation pay over 95% of the taxes. So it would be hard to give someone a tax cut who does not pay taxes. It is those rich corporations and rich people that hire workers. That is why it is good to give them tax breaks. Some of those jobs that go overseas that you were whining about earlier could have stayed here if they could pay less in taxes! Oh and this trickle down effect was successful under Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. Two of those were fellow Democrats Mr. Obama.
Now he starts explaining what he is going to do:
He says he wants a tax code to help businesses and workers. But yet you want to raise taxes on most of them? He says he will not give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs oversees like McCain does. What? We should be wanting to give them tax cuts so they will stay here you idiot! He has a goal of energy idependence within 10 years. How are you going to do that when you are against all kinds of energy that actually work? Against Oil, clean coal, nuclear power!! Those are the best sources of energy and you are against all them.
Finally now he starts to talk about a little personal responsibility at the end of his speech! Now I'm liking this. Too bad it is such a small part of his speech. If McCain wants to have a debate about temperate and judgement then I am ready to have it? Really? You originally agreed to meet with him doing townhall meetings and then changed your mind and chose not to debate him and travel with him. Well it stays with your campaign slogan: CHANGE you can believe in.
He then does a quick run down on those things that he is on the wrong side of and knows he can't spend much time on: Abortion, Gun Control, Teen-age pregnacy, Same-Sex marriage, and immigration. He knows those are losing battles for him so he talked about those issues for a combined 45 seconds.
Ladies and Gentlemen I just touched the surface of this speech. Everyone of our founding fathers are rolling over in their grave as this man who wants to be president of this great nation now promises to continue ruining everything that those men just a little over 200 years ago promised us. Please I beg you, do not allow him and the democratic party the opportunity to do this.
Thankyou,
JESS
Due to living with a man who has no interest in politics whatsoever, I had to record his speech on my DVR and have just now finished watching it. These are my comments on just a few parts of his speech:
I find it interesting that he addresses his "great friend Dick Durbin" in the opening line of his speech. Dick Durbin is only a senator who compared, without apology, our troops to Nazi troops of World War II. Barack Obama then addresses when he got his start in politics. I would have advised him not to do this as it demonstrates to us his lack of experience and how short of a time he has really spent serving our country. He is without a doubt the least experienced candidate our nation has ever had for president.
Obama then mentions that our economy is in turmoil. Last quarter we had a slightly more than 3% growth in GDP despite democrats and pundits, as well as the mainstream media talking heads saying that we were in a recession. Many European countries that those idiot praise so highly wish they could boast of a 3% growth in GDP last quarter. Oh and we are in a slow down. But a 3% growth during a slow down with employment still around 5.5% - 6% and actually looking to not rise too much higher is one heck of an economy during a downturn. We only wish that the downturns of business cycles were this good a decade or two ago. Don't get me wrong. These are tough times for some people. There is no doubt that the economy is not as strong as it has been in other times. But we are in a downturn to correct a business cycle. In just over a year from now things will be racing forward again and jobs will be getting created. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is some gloom and doom time when our bad times are far better than most country's good times.
He then wants to blame President Bush for the "housing crisis" mess. That is rediculous. There are economic reasons for this so called crisis. People bought too much! Interest rates were kept too low by the Federal reserve and people got loans that they thought would be cheap forever. But when interest rates go back up, these people find out that their prices just went up. People should not have stretched their budget so far. If there are any politicians to blame it is liberal like Obama that pass laws that pressure banks to give loans to people they would not truly want to give loans to. This will also turn around. The value of our homes are going down. This is true. But the value of our homes were too high not long ago. This is a correction. There are many hurt by this including people in my family. But there are many people who are helped. And those who did not strecth themselves too much and keep their houses which values have dropped, well they will see those value come back up shortly. Don't blame Bush that is ignorant.
He then rediculed free trade! Really? Free trade has made us so much richer. Look at what you buy that does not come from America. If it was made here it would cost a lot more. Now ask yourself how much less of that stuff you would have if it cost more. Free trade sends some jobs overseas. But it creates more jobs for the future and it gives more people things at cheaper prices. I do not want to protect the few jobs and hurt all people who have to buy those products.
Obama then criticizes our government for sitting on their hands while a city drowned? He actually got this one right. Democratic governments in New Orleans led by Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana were in control of those operations. Blanco did not allow the federal government come in until it was too late. I'm assuming you are talking about the local DEMOCRATIC governments right? Of course he was referring to the Federal response but anyone who understands our government system of Federalism knows that it is primarily the local governments responsiblilty for disasters such as that.
He then talks about how McCain does not understand everyday American people. I believe it is McCain that does townhall meetings where questions are asked and he answers them to and from local citizens. You Mr. Obama, give speeches in front of thousands without taking questions using a teleprompter. That is unless it is a taped interview with the always grilling Katie Couric, Brian Williams or maybe Bob Gibson.
He then fusses that McCain supported tax cuts for big corporations but not 100,000,000 Americans. Really? He supported the Bush tax cuts which gave a tax cut to almost everyone but those who do not pay taxes. The top 50 percent in this nation pay over 95% of the taxes. So it would be hard to give someone a tax cut who does not pay taxes. It is those rich corporations and rich people that hire workers. That is why it is good to give them tax breaks. Some of those jobs that go overseas that you were whining about earlier could have stayed here if they could pay less in taxes! Oh and this trickle down effect was successful under Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. Two of those were fellow Democrats Mr. Obama.
Now he starts explaining what he is going to do:
He says he wants a tax code to help businesses and workers. But yet you want to raise taxes on most of them? He says he will not give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs oversees like McCain does. What? We should be wanting to give them tax cuts so they will stay here you idiot! He has a goal of energy idependence within 10 years. How are you going to do that when you are against all kinds of energy that actually work? Against Oil, clean coal, nuclear power!! Those are the best sources of energy and you are against all them.
Finally now he starts to talk about a little personal responsibility at the end of his speech! Now I'm liking this. Too bad it is such a small part of his speech. If McCain wants to have a debate about temperate and judgement then I am ready to have it? Really? You originally agreed to meet with him doing townhall meetings and then changed your mind and chose not to debate him and travel with him. Well it stays with your campaign slogan: CHANGE you can believe in.
He then does a quick run down on those things that he is on the wrong side of and knows he can't spend much time on: Abortion, Gun Control, Teen-age pregnacy, Same-Sex marriage, and immigration. He knows those are losing battles for him so he talked about those issues for a combined 45 seconds.
Ladies and Gentlemen I just touched the surface of this speech. Everyone of our founding fathers are rolling over in their grave as this man who wants to be president of this great nation now promises to continue ruining everything that those men just a little over 200 years ago promised us. Please I beg you, do not allow him and the democratic party the opportunity to do this.
Thankyou,
JESS
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Fixing Our Education System part 3
I had a comment on my original blog that asks how someone who has only taught for 3 weeks his whole life would know the answer to fixing our education system. This reminds me of the professors that would look at me like I was some moron for questioning someone like them with all their experience and me with very little. The fact is that I have had very few if any original thoughts on most of these issues. I might add something such as what I will discuss today. But for the most part these ideas have first been tried in other countries, second come from top ranked economist that study the effects of competition in any sector of an economy, and three have been well thought out and not just thrown together and written about.
I asked in the last post why we do not depend on the private sector to educate our children to be able to work in the private sector that we love so much. We hate government ran operations and love most of our private ran operations. Yet I hear liberals talk about how we "can not allow such an important institution be left to the free markets of private competition to operate." What? Private competitive corporations do things efficiently. We should beg them to get into the business of educating our young people!!
If each parent received a "voucher" for each of their children that was estimated to be the amount spent per student in that school system already, that parent should then be able to take that voucher to any school of their choice. This includes both private schools and current "government" schools. For you who say that there is a separation of church and state and thus it would be unconstitutional for that money to be spent at a religious private school of some sort, please stay tuned for future blogs that will explain the fallacy in that argument. Schools would thus compete for your child attending their school. There would be an owner of the school that would hire a principle to run the everyday operations of the school like a CEO would a business. If that principle is not living up to what the owner wants then he is fired. Same thing with teachers that do not perform. Teacher unions would become a non-issue as the CEO would not allow for tenure if he did not want it. Sure there would be Unions that would compete for memberships and promise some of the same promises they do today. But as today in the private sector, unless an owner wants to hire union workers, he or she would not have to. Plus their influence on curriculum would be at a minimum and most importantly could not guarantee tenure.
Schools would not only compete for students by trying to run the best schools and get the best teachers to help teach your child. They would also try to do it while saving as many resources as possible. This is because the school can charge less than what the voucher is worth. Any left over funds could be kept by the school or given to the parent in a form of cash. Thus to incentivize parents to bring their children there, they will get good teachers and do it for as cheap as they can without sacrificing success in academics and sports, and thus convince parents by advertising so much money back in cash from that voucher. Due to this newly created market, money and resources will not be wasted and efficiency will be met.
Your child will receive the best education that can be attained at the best price. If the school is not satisfying the customer, you will shop somewhere else. This would allow those students stuck in failing schools to move out of them into a successful school. The value of the voucher will increase by an inflation amount each year to cover growth in prices. If schools wanted to charge more than what a voucher is worth they could. It is a free market after all. Raises in prices would be needed for really good schools that were successful and saw a large increase in the amount of students attending or wanting to attend. Their school might become over flowing and need new construction. Due to high demand the price rises for a time, thus raising the extra funds needed to build new classrooms so that in just a year or two, more students could then attend it that could not have before at a lower price with the rise in supply of room.
In the next blog I will summarize the proposition and explain more benefits for parents, students, and yes teachers such as myself. Please tune in later.
I asked in the last post why we do not depend on the private sector to educate our children to be able to work in the private sector that we love so much. We hate government ran operations and love most of our private ran operations. Yet I hear liberals talk about how we "can not allow such an important institution be left to the free markets of private competition to operate." What? Private competitive corporations do things efficiently. We should beg them to get into the business of educating our young people!!
If each parent received a "voucher" for each of their children that was estimated to be the amount spent per student in that school system already, that parent should then be able to take that voucher to any school of their choice. This includes both private schools and current "government" schools. For you who say that there is a separation of church and state and thus it would be unconstitutional for that money to be spent at a religious private school of some sort, please stay tuned for future blogs that will explain the fallacy in that argument. Schools would thus compete for your child attending their school. There would be an owner of the school that would hire a principle to run the everyday operations of the school like a CEO would a business. If that principle is not living up to what the owner wants then he is fired. Same thing with teachers that do not perform. Teacher unions would become a non-issue as the CEO would not allow for tenure if he did not want it. Sure there would be Unions that would compete for memberships and promise some of the same promises they do today. But as today in the private sector, unless an owner wants to hire union workers, he or she would not have to. Plus their influence on curriculum would be at a minimum and most importantly could not guarantee tenure.
Schools would not only compete for students by trying to run the best schools and get the best teachers to help teach your child. They would also try to do it while saving as many resources as possible. This is because the school can charge less than what the voucher is worth. Any left over funds could be kept by the school or given to the parent in a form of cash. Thus to incentivize parents to bring their children there, they will get good teachers and do it for as cheap as they can without sacrificing success in academics and sports, and thus convince parents by advertising so much money back in cash from that voucher. Due to this newly created market, money and resources will not be wasted and efficiency will be met.
Your child will receive the best education that can be attained at the best price. If the school is not satisfying the customer, you will shop somewhere else. This would allow those students stuck in failing schools to move out of them into a successful school. The value of the voucher will increase by an inflation amount each year to cover growth in prices. If schools wanted to charge more than what a voucher is worth they could. It is a free market after all. Raises in prices would be needed for really good schools that were successful and saw a large increase in the amount of students attending or wanting to attend. Their school might become over flowing and need new construction. Due to high demand the price rises for a time, thus raising the extra funds needed to build new classrooms so that in just a year or two, more students could then attend it that could not have before at a lower price with the rise in supply of room.
In the next blog I will summarize the proposition and explain more benefits for parents, students, and yes teachers such as myself. Please tune in later.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
White Men Can't Run
Dinesh D'souza recently wrote an article entitled the above title of this blog. He bases it on a book written by Amby Burfoot that chronicles how whites have been less successful in sports that require lots of running. If you watched the Olympics these past couple of weeks and for the past few decades you will learn something that is very interesting and yet almost never spoken about. People originally from Western areas of Africa win most all the races of any type. They are also the people who usually play receiver, defensive back, and running back on the football field. They now even dominate the Defensive line, especially the Defensive End position. Blacks from West African decent dominate in the game of basketball as well. How many times has a mostly Western African descendant basketball team lost in the Olympics? I believe the United States loses one game for ever twenty something they win in the Olympics and world championships. Most of the players- black
The book that D'souza sites in his recent column investigates the reasons for this. Their body type, skeleton and muscle make-up are the main reasons for this. Such a simple answer. Hmmm.. lets see.... one particular ethnicity has a particular build that benefits them to run faster, run longer and jump higher.... That is probably why they compete so much better in those sports that require faster runners, longer runners, and higher jumpers. Why does no one talk about that? D'Souza believes it has something to do with pointing out those advantages would mean that people would point out advantages that the average white person might have over a black person. Thus racism would abound somehow.
Random thought: Why do we hear so much about how many more black coaches we need, black quarterbacks should get a chance, and how few black swimmers there are, but yet nothing about white runners, white basketball players, and white skilled players in football? Maybe D'souza is on to something. This I do know. I'm tired of people being so politically correct that they refuse to simply state the obvious out of fear that the truth might not comfort a political mindset that they have. That being that discrimination still abounds in this terrible country that so many of them think we have.
The book that D'souza sites in his recent column investigates the reasons for this. Their body type, skeleton and muscle make-up are the main reasons for this. Such a simple answer. Hmmm.. lets see.... one particular ethnicity has a particular build that benefits them to run faster, run longer and jump higher.... That is probably why they compete so much better in those sports that require faster runners, longer runners, and higher jumpers. Why does no one talk about that? D'Souza believes it has something to do with pointing out those advantages would mean that people would point out advantages that the average white person might have over a black person. Thus racism would abound somehow.
Random thought: Why do we hear so much about how many more black coaches we need, black quarterbacks should get a chance, and how few black swimmers there are, but yet nothing about white runners, white basketball players, and white skilled players in football? Maybe D'souza is on to something. This I do know. I'm tired of people being so politically correct that they refuse to simply state the obvious out of fear that the truth might not comfort a political mindset that they have. That being that discrimination still abounds in this terrible country that so many of them think we have.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Fixing our education system part 2
Ask yourself a question. What is it that I like best about this country? Just keep it simple nothing too deep.. You know like our grocery stores. Food is always there, they are never out of anything, and it is somewhat cheap considering what goes into the process of actually getting that food there on the counter for you to push a buggy by and pick up. We love our retail stores. Wal-mart, American Eagle, Express, Old Navy, etc.. You name it we love it. Have you gotten mad there before? Maybe when they did not let you take something back or could not get help as fast as you wanted it. But you still shop there out of choice. We have a wide selection of brands to choose from. You can choose to shop for looks, comfort, or price. If you need something cheap.. there is Wal-mart. You might not like their service as much (although I have been treated well there) but if you want to shop for service, go to the stores I mentioned above. Wal-mart is there for its low price. And if you like something in between or a store where you can pick out something of many different brands, you have J.C. Penny, Sears, Belk, Maceys, etc.. You name it, the United States has it.
Why do we like those places so much? I'll tell you why. Because if we didn't, you would go somewhere else and that place would go broke and out of business. So they have to do what they need to do (Wal-mart: keep prices low, Express: Keep up with the trend) to make you happy. Anything ran by the government we usually do not like. The Post Office, Airport Security, Road Construction that takes so long to complete, Medicare, Department of Agriculture, Tax Policies to keep up with, and of course the big one.. Our SCHOOLS! Why do we dislike these things so much? Because those institutions are ran by government which has a monopoly on most of that. If you don't like it.. they lose their job right? NO. It stays no matter what. There is no incentive for them to be productive beyond staying just above water and out of trouble. Which brings me to my point.
Lets allow the private sector to educate our kids. The Private sector runs most of the things we like in our country, why not allow the private sector to prepare our students to work in or run those companies we like so much, in the future. We depend upon the private sector for our food to eat, healthcare to stay healthy, make clothes to cover us, build our homes so they don't collapse on us. Oh but DO NOT dear let the private sector educate us! I don't get it to be honest.
How about this: Government funds our education system with "vouchers" that are sent out to every parent that has a kid that is of school age. Wherever that parent wants to take that child they can do it and the voucher counts as money. The Voucher will equal the amount that is spent on average in your local school system per child. Hypothetically lets say... $8,000 a child. That money now goes to wherever that parent chooses to send their child. This means schools will be competing for your child to go to school there so they can receive that voucher. Currently, students are required to go to a specific school that they are zoned in. This means there is no incentive for that school to do everything it can to impress and make that student and more importantly that student's parent happy with the education he or she is receiving.
Just like our business sector that must do everything it can to out do the other. Our schools would now start trying to out do other schools to get you to send your child there. This helps everyone and every school.
In the next blog I will explain why this works and the benefits to this new system. I promise there will be things in the blog that you have never thought of. I hope you tune in
Why do we like those places so much? I'll tell you why. Because if we didn't, you would go somewhere else and that place would go broke and out of business. So they have to do what they need to do (Wal-mart: keep prices low, Express: Keep up with the trend) to make you happy. Anything ran by the government we usually do not like. The Post Office, Airport Security, Road Construction that takes so long to complete, Medicare, Department of Agriculture, Tax Policies to keep up with, and of course the big one.. Our SCHOOLS! Why do we dislike these things so much? Because those institutions are ran by government which has a monopoly on most of that. If you don't like it.. they lose their job right? NO. It stays no matter what. There is no incentive for them to be productive beyond staying just above water and out of trouble. Which brings me to my point.
Lets allow the private sector to educate our kids. The Private sector runs most of the things we like in our country, why not allow the private sector to prepare our students to work in or run those companies we like so much, in the future. We depend upon the private sector for our food to eat, healthcare to stay healthy, make clothes to cover us, build our homes so they don't collapse on us. Oh but DO NOT dear let the private sector educate us! I don't get it to be honest.
How about this: Government funds our education system with "vouchers" that are sent out to every parent that has a kid that is of school age. Wherever that parent wants to take that child they can do it and the voucher counts as money. The Voucher will equal the amount that is spent on average in your local school system per child. Hypothetically lets say... $8,000 a child. That money now goes to wherever that parent chooses to send their child. This means schools will be competing for your child to go to school there so they can receive that voucher. Currently, students are required to go to a specific school that they are zoned in. This means there is no incentive for that school to do everything it can to impress and make that student and more importantly that student's parent happy with the education he or she is receiving.
Just like our business sector that must do everything it can to out do the other. Our schools would now start trying to out do other schools to get you to send your child there. This helps everyone and every school.
In the next blog I will explain why this works and the benefits to this new system. I promise there will be things in the blog that you have never thought of. I hope you tune in
Friday, August 22, 2008
Fixing our education system
As I complete my second week of my first ever teaching job, I have made some adjustments to my philosophy on education. The adjustments: I can now say that I have experience in our education system and thus my convictions are now stronger than ever that our nation needs to adopt education reform that goes a little like this:
Although our nation spends more money per child for education than every other nation (I'm pretty sure that is correct), Our country still ranks only 19th in the world in terms of education. It is true that all students are educated here and in many of the other countries, poor and disabled students are not counted in the study thus skewing our overall students' performance down. But that does not account for us being ranked as low as 19th. What would I do to change and enhance our education system in America?
Only one thing needs to be changed as far as I can see. This one thing will lead to many other revolutions taking place to fix all the problems with our education system. The troubling thing is this one change is opposed by Teacher Unions, which in addition to Environmentalist, Feminist, and radical civil right activists, have a strangle hold on the Democrat Party. This change would thus require getting Democrats out of Washington. The only way to do that is for republicans to change their recent ways and re-adopt the ideas of economic freedom, restricting government spending, bring back moral standards that end the corruption, and standing up for what you believe in the public square. Republicans such as the president did not defend their policies strongly enough when they were still in power and the democrats took the opening and paraded against the policies of the republicans, and voter opinion shifted. If republicans would get back to their conservative roots and defend themselves in the public square, they will take back the congress and then expand their power. We then need a president that would be revolutionizing not someone like the current president who created comprehensive education reform called: No Child Left Behind.
When this is accomplished, the greatest legislation reform in decades and maybe over a century will take place. This legislation would do only one thing: It would eliminate, with the exception of funding, the entire role of government in our education system. No longer would government ever make any kind of decision in regard to our education system. Government would have only one role. That is that wherever a child decides to attend school, the government would send that school money for that child. That government being the state government as the federal government will never again fund any part of or control any part of our education system. Each individual state will have their own program and decide how best to run their education program. Within a few short years, every state will have adopted a policy of funding the school per student who CHOOSES to attend there. Yes that is right. The child and parents of that child will be able to decide where they attend school. There will never be any such thing as "zoning" for any particular school. Every child can determine, whether currentyl private or currently public school they want to attend.
In the next post I will explain to you why and how having school choice will revolutionize our education system here in America. This change will bring us to the #1 education system in the world, even when you include in it special and handicapped students.
Although our nation spends more money per child for education than every other nation (I'm pretty sure that is correct), Our country still ranks only 19th in the world in terms of education. It is true that all students are educated here and in many of the other countries, poor and disabled students are not counted in the study thus skewing our overall students' performance down. But that does not account for us being ranked as low as 19th. What would I do to change and enhance our education system in America?
Only one thing needs to be changed as far as I can see. This one thing will lead to many other revolutions taking place to fix all the problems with our education system. The troubling thing is this one change is opposed by Teacher Unions, which in addition to Environmentalist, Feminist, and radical civil right activists, have a strangle hold on the Democrat Party. This change would thus require getting Democrats out of Washington. The only way to do that is for republicans to change their recent ways and re-adopt the ideas of economic freedom, restricting government spending, bring back moral standards that end the corruption, and standing up for what you believe in the public square. Republicans such as the president did not defend their policies strongly enough when they were still in power and the democrats took the opening and paraded against the policies of the republicans, and voter opinion shifted. If republicans would get back to their conservative roots and defend themselves in the public square, they will take back the congress and then expand their power. We then need a president that would be revolutionizing not someone like the current president who created comprehensive education reform called: No Child Left Behind.
When this is accomplished, the greatest legislation reform in decades and maybe over a century will take place. This legislation would do only one thing: It would eliminate, with the exception of funding, the entire role of government in our education system. No longer would government ever make any kind of decision in regard to our education system. Government would have only one role. That is that wherever a child decides to attend school, the government would send that school money for that child. That government being the state government as the federal government will never again fund any part of or control any part of our education system. Each individual state will have their own program and decide how best to run their education program. Within a few short years, every state will have adopted a policy of funding the school per student who CHOOSES to attend there. Yes that is right. The child and parents of that child will be able to decide where they attend school. There will never be any such thing as "zoning" for any particular school. Every child can determine, whether currentyl private or currently public school they want to attend.
In the next post I will explain to you why and how having school choice will revolutionize our education system here in America. This change will bring us to the #1 education system in the world, even when you include in it special and handicapped students.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Saddleback Forum with Pastor Rick Warren
Last night Pastor Rick Warren of Sattleback Church in Lake Forest, California, hosted a forum with the Republican and Democrat presidential nominees. If you missed it go to Foxnews.com and watch it. I would say that it was the best forum that I have ever watched in my short history of following presidential politics. I'm not the only one, Charles Krauthammer, columnist and foxnews employee, said it was the best in history. Look for this forum to be used in the future as presidential nominees will be happy to participate in it. During the forum and this Sunday morning as I study World History before leaving for church, I have watched morning coverage of the forum and one thing sticks out to me.
Some believe that the questions were centered around John McCain's strengths. The people that I have seen say this have emphasized that they do not think Pastor Warren did this on purpose but that the questions that he cares about centers around conservative principles. In other words it was not a conspiracy but that McCain was in a comfortable environment talking about points that are more comfortable to him than Barack Obama. Some would defend Warren and say that it was fair and balanced and that it was a great forum I do not know what you are talking about. Conservatives will say that for the first time Obama looks weaker than McCain and your just upset so your making that up!
Not me. I agree with the skeptics. The forum was set up in McCain's favor. I believe that it was a conspiracy. But not a conspiracy against Barack Obama or in favor of John McCain. The conspiracy was that the questions centered around WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE! The questions were tough and centered around leadership, experience, wisdom, seeking more wisdom, belief system, world view, whether evil exist and how do you deal with it, philosophies of life. The questions were tough and to the point. And the questions centered around what is most important about an individual to see if he or she are qualified to be President.
If you are upset that the questions centered around McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses, then maybe you democrats should think twice before nominating a postmodern, pragmatist, young, inexperienced, far leftist, communist and Marxist sympathizer like Barack Obama. It is that simple. And I am not being a partisan anti-Obama guy. The man has admitted that he hung out with Marxist professors for guidance. A pastor of a church like Saddleback was perfect for asking questions like that because a Pastor is an occupation that requires the same qualities that a president must have. In one word- Leadership. This and the other topics are Barack's weaknesses because Barack Obama is a weak presidential candidate.
P.S. But he looks good and is a great speaker when he delivers a planned speech!
Some believe that the questions were centered around John McCain's strengths. The people that I have seen say this have emphasized that they do not think Pastor Warren did this on purpose but that the questions that he cares about centers around conservative principles. In other words it was not a conspiracy but that McCain was in a comfortable environment talking about points that are more comfortable to him than Barack Obama. Some would defend Warren and say that it was fair and balanced and that it was a great forum I do not know what you are talking about. Conservatives will say that for the first time Obama looks weaker than McCain and your just upset so your making that up!
Not me. I agree with the skeptics. The forum was set up in McCain's favor. I believe that it was a conspiracy. But not a conspiracy against Barack Obama or in favor of John McCain. The conspiracy was that the questions centered around WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE! The questions were tough and centered around leadership, experience, wisdom, seeking more wisdom, belief system, world view, whether evil exist and how do you deal with it, philosophies of life. The questions were tough and to the point. And the questions centered around what is most important about an individual to see if he or she are qualified to be President.
If you are upset that the questions centered around McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses, then maybe you democrats should think twice before nominating a postmodern, pragmatist, young, inexperienced, far leftist, communist and Marxist sympathizer like Barack Obama. It is that simple. And I am not being a partisan anti-Obama guy. The man has admitted that he hung out with Marxist professors for guidance. A pastor of a church like Saddleback was perfect for asking questions like that because a Pastor is an occupation that requires the same qualities that a president must have. In one word- Leadership. This and the other topics are Barack's weaknesses because Barack Obama is a weak presidential candidate.
P.S. But he looks good and is a great speaker when he delivers a planned speech!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Just moved!
Sorry I have been away so long. I got a phone call from the principal at Sequoyah High, close to Sweetwater, Tn, to come in for an interview just three Mondays ago. I interviewed on Tuesday and found out that I had the job just two Mondays ago and had to move by Tuesday and start getting my class set up and attend a lot of meetings. Finally last week was my first week of teaching but I have had to work extra hard to be prepared for that. So I have been away for a time.
I hope you are following the price of gas fall. I predicted it a couple months ago when President Bush lifted the executive band on drilling. This was a step in the right direction and made speculators bid lower prices for oil due to the possibility that Congress will finally get their act together and lift their ban on drilling. If that happens Oil prices will fall another 25 dollars quickly just as it has 25 dollars just recently. Gas will dip another $.25 over the next couple or three weeks unless the markets change again. But as of now it should be close to an average of 3$3.30 which means around where most of you live it will be closer to $3.15. This will still take a few weeks and it also depends on nothing changing between now and then. Lets hope that happens.
It is my opinion that John McCain is polling this close to Obama because of the drilling thing. With the War in Iraq going well the attention has shifted to the economy. The economy is being hampered dramatically by gas prices amongst other things. Republicans have an advantage on oil prices and thus unless Obama switches his position on it as other economic positions, the polls should remain close. Something that no one could have predicted a few months ago with the hype of Obama stirring around the liberal leaning media.
I will soon hopefully have my work here caught up and start blogging again soon. I will soon start a series on our founding documents and the impact of God in our country early on in our history. I will discuss the originality of the phrase : Separation of Church and State. It should be interesting. I hope you tune in.
I hope you are following the price of gas fall. I predicted it a couple months ago when President Bush lifted the executive band on drilling. This was a step in the right direction and made speculators bid lower prices for oil due to the possibility that Congress will finally get their act together and lift their ban on drilling. If that happens Oil prices will fall another 25 dollars quickly just as it has 25 dollars just recently. Gas will dip another $.25 over the next couple or three weeks unless the markets change again. But as of now it should be close to an average of 3$3.30 which means around where most of you live it will be closer to $3.15. This will still take a few weeks and it also depends on nothing changing between now and then. Lets hope that happens.
It is my opinion that John McCain is polling this close to Obama because of the drilling thing. With the War in Iraq going well the attention has shifted to the economy. The economy is being hampered dramatically by gas prices amongst other things. Republicans have an advantage on oil prices and thus unless Obama switches his position on it as other economic positions, the polls should remain close. Something that no one could have predicted a few months ago with the hype of Obama stirring around the liberal leaning media.
I will soon hopefully have my work here caught up and start blogging again soon. I will soon start a series on our founding documents and the impact of God in our country early on in our history. I will discuss the originality of the phrase : Separation of Church and State. It should be interesting. I hope you tune in.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
How To Win The Black Vote
Due to writing blogs that have to be divided into two, three, and even four part series', I have to put off writing about other issues that are relevant at a particular time. This is one of those cases. It was not too long ago that John McCain spoke to the NAACP. The NAACP and other civil rights organizations are anti-Republican to say the least. George Bush did not speak to them until years after his presidency because of the disrespect that group shows him. John McCain was shown the same respect as some protested by reading the newspaper much like I did in my high school days when the opposing basketball teams starting lineup was being announced in the Oliver Springs gymnasium. So how should a conservative (which McCain is not) really go after the Black vote?
First, do not try to suck up to them, apologize to them, bring up history of racism to them, etc. That has been done and no one is better at the liberal approach then Democrats are. So even if McCain is the most popular Republican to the NAACP and the Black population, he will still not get their vote over Obama. I would go after that small percentage of black voters who have not been convinced of their "Victimization" standing in America. Conservatives must take a different approach, an approach that might only win 20-25% of the vote this year but is still more the 10-15% they usually receive. So how do we do this?
Go after Democrats on their support for teacher unions and their hatred of school choice. There is no group in America that is hurt more by our communist style education system we have in this country then the inner city black kid. NO ONE! Look into the camera and tell every inner-city poor black family that I will work to get school vouchers to you so that you can take your child to any school of your choice. That voucher will be worth the current amount spent per child to a typical public school in that area. That amount will now follow that child to any school of your choice including private schools. If you can not afford to send your children to the area private school well take this $8,000 dollar voucher and all you have to do is pay the rest. Currently you pay large sums of taxes and then watch that money wasted on a failing government school. I want to empower you not the teacher unions.
Then tell those same black families that you will clean up their community. Are we going to do that by sending money and more resources to rebuild broken homes and businesses that have moved out of the area? No we are not. I as President will appoint judges that will prosecute criminals to the fullest extent. Lawyers will no longer be able to free their clients from prison sentences that punish violent behavior. I will appoint judges that will not allow child predators out of prison after only a few years. Your communities will be cleaned up because the criminals that tear your city down will now be thrown in jail for maximum years! Your children will be safe from drug dealers and rapist for now on! Vote for me and I promise to take the resources currently spent on long drawn out court cases and appeals and instead spend it on more prisons and guards to keep criminals off your streets.
Finally I will explain how liberal policies that are suppose to be well intentioned have destroyed the black community. These policies include the minimum wage law that keeps your young kid from being able to get a job because companies tend not to hire them if it cost so much to do so. I will promote less regulation on building and housing costs that liberal cities such as San Fransisco have passed that have resulted in rising housing costs due to lower supple and a departure of over half the black community from those cities. I will lower taxes on corporations and small businesses so that they will invest more money into more jobs and more opportunities that will benefit all low wage workers in every part of the country.
I'm tired of seeing liberal Republicans worry about trying to make all Black people happy like Democrats have. I want them to go after the 25% of the black vote that have been waiting on a politician that will pass laws and enforce laws that will make them smarter and safer. Eventually that 25% will grow. The good news is that 25% will win the election this year and continue winning those elections in years to come.
First, do not try to suck up to them, apologize to them, bring up history of racism to them, etc. That has been done and no one is better at the liberal approach then Democrats are. So even if McCain is the most popular Republican to the NAACP and the Black population, he will still not get their vote over Obama. I would go after that small percentage of black voters who have not been convinced of their "Victimization" standing in America. Conservatives must take a different approach, an approach that might only win 20-25% of the vote this year but is still more the 10-15% they usually receive. So how do we do this?
Go after Democrats on their support for teacher unions and their hatred of school choice. There is no group in America that is hurt more by our communist style education system we have in this country then the inner city black kid. NO ONE! Look into the camera and tell every inner-city poor black family that I will work to get school vouchers to you so that you can take your child to any school of your choice. That voucher will be worth the current amount spent per child to a typical public school in that area. That amount will now follow that child to any school of your choice including private schools. If you can not afford to send your children to the area private school well take this $8,000 dollar voucher and all you have to do is pay the rest. Currently you pay large sums of taxes and then watch that money wasted on a failing government school. I want to empower you not the teacher unions.
Then tell those same black families that you will clean up their community. Are we going to do that by sending money and more resources to rebuild broken homes and businesses that have moved out of the area? No we are not. I as President will appoint judges that will prosecute criminals to the fullest extent. Lawyers will no longer be able to free their clients from prison sentences that punish violent behavior. I will appoint judges that will not allow child predators out of prison after only a few years. Your communities will be cleaned up because the criminals that tear your city down will now be thrown in jail for maximum years! Your children will be safe from drug dealers and rapist for now on! Vote for me and I promise to take the resources currently spent on long drawn out court cases and appeals and instead spend it on more prisons and guards to keep criminals off your streets.
Finally I will explain how liberal policies that are suppose to be well intentioned have destroyed the black community. These policies include the minimum wage law that keeps your young kid from being able to get a job because companies tend not to hire them if it cost so much to do so. I will promote less regulation on building and housing costs that liberal cities such as San Fransisco have passed that have resulted in rising housing costs due to lower supple and a departure of over half the black community from those cities. I will lower taxes on corporations and small businesses so that they will invest more money into more jobs and more opportunities that will benefit all low wage workers in every part of the country.
I'm tired of seeing liberal Republicans worry about trying to make all Black people happy like Democrats have. I want them to go after the 25% of the black vote that have been waiting on a politician that will pass laws and enforce laws that will make them smarter and safer. Eventually that 25% will grow. The good news is that 25% will win the election this year and continue winning those elections in years to come.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Political Solutions for Political Problems Part II
Thomas Sowell starts his latest article with: "We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating. " I can get frustrated when I hear family members, friends, or strangers talk about which candidate for president will do the best in solving the problems our county has. They wish they would fix the housing crisis, the financial institutions mess, our airlines, gas prices, and I could go on and on. Most of us who study history and economics and have principles which foundations are built around the ideas freedom, private property rights, and federalism, would rather have a politician stand up and say "When elected I promise to take government out of the business of regulation and interference in the free market. I promise that when a slow down in our economy comes about that I will do NOTHING other than look for other ways to keep us in Washington from screwing everything up!"
In addition to government passing laws that incentivize and in fact force banks to make loans to people and in places they otherwise would not, local governments pass other laws that artificially raise the cost of housing. When a local government puts price ceilings on apartment rentals the amount of housing built in those areas goes down with landlords moving into other areas around the country where they can actually make money. In addition to that, current apartments are no longer maintained and thus are abandoned. All this lowers the supply of housing and thus what happens to the price? If you said it goes up then go to the front of the class. This is why housing is so much more expensive in cities like San Fransisco and New York. When citizens want to buy a house they must get a loan that is larger than they would if such regulations and restrictions were not around which would lead to more building and a lowering of prices. This adds to the housing bubble which bursts as interest rates go back up.
The Federal Reserve kept interest rates so long for so long that many people got loans at very low rates that adjust as the Fed raises their rates. This effects poor people who have to get adjustable-rate mortgages. When the rates go back up on those people who have gotten loans only due to the fact that government forces financial institutions to loan to them, payments increase. This is the "sub-prime" loans we hear about in the news. In areas around the country like in California where a half-million dollar house is the norm, a 4% interest being raised to 6% would mean a rise in about $7,000 a year in mortgage payments.
In a true free market people on the bubble of affording housing would choose to save more while living in a rental apartment that does not cost as much now due to a rise in supply with no regulations on price and zoning laws being greatly reduced. Furthermore without political pressure in Washington the interest rates would not be kept so artificially low for so long. Interest rates being too low incentivizes people to get loans many of whom should not. Interest rates being low also causes the value of the dollar to fall. This eventually leads to an increase in inflation which the Fed must get under control by raising the interest rates back up. This would eliminate most of the huge ups and downs in the economy. More and more economist now blame the New Deal policies for making the Great Depression worse and last longer. In 1987 the stock market crash was just as bad if not worse according to economist Sowell. This time Reagan did nothing. This was not well received by the mainsteam media and many other politicians. All that happened was 20 straight years of huge economic growth, low inflation and very low unemployment rates.
I hope these last two blogs will help you readers realize the beauty of the free market and how politicians cause the problems that they now promise to fix. When I vote I have to vote for the candidate that promises to interfere less than the other. I would love to have a candidate that would never interfere but I know I live in the real world where these facts mean little to politicians trying to get votes.
In addition to government passing laws that incentivize and in fact force banks to make loans to people and in places they otherwise would not, local governments pass other laws that artificially raise the cost of housing. When a local government puts price ceilings on apartment rentals the amount of housing built in those areas goes down with landlords moving into other areas around the country where they can actually make money. In addition to that, current apartments are no longer maintained and thus are abandoned. All this lowers the supply of housing and thus what happens to the price? If you said it goes up then go to the front of the class. This is why housing is so much more expensive in cities like San Fransisco and New York. When citizens want to buy a house they must get a loan that is larger than they would if such regulations and restrictions were not around which would lead to more building and a lowering of prices. This adds to the housing bubble which bursts as interest rates go back up.
The Federal Reserve kept interest rates so long for so long that many people got loans at very low rates that adjust as the Fed raises their rates. This effects poor people who have to get adjustable-rate mortgages. When the rates go back up on those people who have gotten loans only due to the fact that government forces financial institutions to loan to them, payments increase. This is the "sub-prime" loans we hear about in the news. In areas around the country like in California where a half-million dollar house is the norm, a 4% interest being raised to 6% would mean a rise in about $7,000 a year in mortgage payments.
In a true free market people on the bubble of affording housing would choose to save more while living in a rental apartment that does not cost as much now due to a rise in supply with no regulations on price and zoning laws being greatly reduced. Furthermore without political pressure in Washington the interest rates would not be kept so artificially low for so long. Interest rates being too low incentivizes people to get loans many of whom should not. Interest rates being low also causes the value of the dollar to fall. This eventually leads to an increase in inflation which the Fed must get under control by raising the interest rates back up. This would eliminate most of the huge ups and downs in the economy. More and more economist now blame the New Deal policies for making the Great Depression worse and last longer. In 1987 the stock market crash was just as bad if not worse according to economist Sowell. This time Reagan did nothing. This was not well received by the mainsteam media and many other politicians. All that happened was 20 straight years of huge economic growth, low inflation and very low unemployment rates.
I hope these last two blogs will help you readers realize the beauty of the free market and how politicians cause the problems that they now promise to fix. When I vote I have to vote for the candidate that promises to interfere less than the other. I would love to have a candidate that would never interfere but I know I live in the real world where these facts mean little to politicians trying to get votes.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Political Solutions for Political Problems
There is very little if anything that angers me more than to see an American citizen get excited to see a politician make a speech about how they are going to fix the problems of our nation. Problems that those knuckle headed politicians caused or was a big part of in the first place! In the next couple posts I will talk to you about the current financial crisis that politicians blame non-regulated predatory lenders for causing. In addition we will look at a couple other examples of politicians wanting to fix problems they caused to begin with.
Politicians love to take advantage of the weak brain of so many American Citizens. Politicians tell us that lending companies who participated in "lucrative" lending practices are some how villains for taking advantage of everyday Americans. Today these "lucrative" companies are now losing millions and some billions of dollars while others are going out of business! Pray tell me how it makes sense to say that a company is going to take advantage of individuals in the loaning business when they know that if those individuals can not make their payments that those lenders too will be hurt just as bad or worse and go out of business? Only a liberal moron would think that is possible.
As Thomas Sowell has recently written about in his recent column that is published in hundreds of magazines and newspapers nationwide, it was not too long ago that there was outrage in Washington and other political capitals over "redlining." This is the practice of banks and financial institutions not lending or approving mortgages in some neighborhoods. Black neighborhoods in particular were questioned. It is true that while 89% of white mortgages were being approved only 72% of black mortgages were being approved. Due to this there was a campaign to get lenders to lend to people that in a true free market, would not be given loans. It is common sense for individuals to only lend in some areas and not in other areas where it is dangerous or there is great risk in not getting that loan back. If politicians want to call that "redlining" then so be it. That does not negate the fact that it is common sense to behave that way.
As far as racial differences it might be good to step back and study whether black and white is the real reason for not receiving loans. Income, credit history, and net worth are three of the prime factors in determining whether a person gets a loan or not. If different groups of people or ethnicity of people are different in those prime categories, there could be great disparities in regards to loan approvals that have NOTHING to do with whether their skin is dark or white. In fact Whites must settle for sub prime loans more often than do Asians. Whites are in fact turned down for conventional mortgage loans more often than Asians. Is this due to racism you think? Funny how the news media never covers these differences but only those of White and Black differences. These prime factors mean a lot to business owners trying to make profits but matter very little to politicians trying to get VOTES.
These laws and regulations that politicians have put on lending institutions have caused the current problem we see today in our financial markets. The Community Reinvestment Act forced many of them to lend in places where they did not want to send their money. This is because the cost of doing business in neighborhoods where neither they nor the politicians wanted to WALK much less start a business would be so high that profits would vanish. Companies are also less likely to want to lend to people they feel will not have the resources to pay in full for the loan they give them. But government has a way of pressuring companies to do just that and this Community Reinvestment Act was only one of the laws that did this.
Other laws and pressures as well as incentives cause lending institutions to lend to people who they otherwise would choose not to lend to in a true free market. In part II of this blog I will explain the economics of this and how it has caused the current problems we have today. We will also examine a couple other political solutions that have caused these same types of problems in the past and continue even today.
Politicians love to take advantage of the weak brain of so many American Citizens. Politicians tell us that lending companies who participated in "lucrative" lending practices are some how villains for taking advantage of everyday Americans. Today these "lucrative" companies are now losing millions and some billions of dollars while others are going out of business! Pray tell me how it makes sense to say that a company is going to take advantage of individuals in the loaning business when they know that if those individuals can not make their payments that those lenders too will be hurt just as bad or worse and go out of business? Only a liberal moron would think that is possible.
As Thomas Sowell has recently written about in his recent column that is published in hundreds of magazines and newspapers nationwide, it was not too long ago that there was outrage in Washington and other political capitals over "redlining." This is the practice of banks and financial institutions not lending or approving mortgages in some neighborhoods. Black neighborhoods in particular were questioned. It is true that while 89% of white mortgages were being approved only 72% of black mortgages were being approved. Due to this there was a campaign to get lenders to lend to people that in a true free market, would not be given loans. It is common sense for individuals to only lend in some areas and not in other areas where it is dangerous or there is great risk in not getting that loan back. If politicians want to call that "redlining" then so be it. That does not negate the fact that it is common sense to behave that way.
As far as racial differences it might be good to step back and study whether black and white is the real reason for not receiving loans. Income, credit history, and net worth are three of the prime factors in determining whether a person gets a loan or not. If different groups of people or ethnicity of people are different in those prime categories, there could be great disparities in regards to loan approvals that have NOTHING to do with whether their skin is dark or white. In fact Whites must settle for sub prime loans more often than do Asians. Whites are in fact turned down for conventional mortgage loans more often than Asians. Is this due to racism you think? Funny how the news media never covers these differences but only those of White and Black differences. These prime factors mean a lot to business owners trying to make profits but matter very little to politicians trying to get VOTES.
These laws and regulations that politicians have put on lending institutions have caused the current problem we see today in our financial markets. The Community Reinvestment Act forced many of them to lend in places where they did not want to send their money. This is because the cost of doing business in neighborhoods where neither they nor the politicians wanted to WALK much less start a business would be so high that profits would vanish. Companies are also less likely to want to lend to people they feel will not have the resources to pay in full for the loan they give them. But government has a way of pressuring companies to do just that and this Community Reinvestment Act was only one of the laws that did this.
Other laws and pressures as well as incentives cause lending institutions to lend to people who they otherwise would choose not to lend to in a true free market. In part II of this blog I will explain the economics of this and how it has caused the current problems we have today. We will also examine a couple other political solutions that have caused these same types of problems in the past and continue even today.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Why Women Make Less- Conclusion
As I continue the fallacy of income differences between males and females I want to reiterate the purpose of these recent blog entries. My goal is to explain that while humans are not perfect and discrimination is apparent in some cases, most of what politicians, mainstream media types, and those of the intelligentsia world call "discrimination" is not discrimination at all. It is easy for a third party(media, politician, college professor, etc..) to denounce American businesses of showing discrimination to women and minorities. But when the economics which is based on cost benefit analysis and not based on the ideology of a third party, different conclusions can be made.
When people get married, money becomes a bigger priority. One must buy clothing, shelter, food, and other necessities for a family not just themselves. Due to this, married men work more than single men. Thus marriage has had an effect on the income gap between men and women. After marriage, men make more than they did when they were single, and more than other still single men do because of the higher number of hours worked and more full-time employment. Furthermore, when getting married, women make less as they spend less time working a professional job and more time caring for the home. Women who have never been married have higher incomes than women who have, and women with no children have higher incomes than women with children according to economist Thomas Sowell.
Lets conclude this study by looking at male versus female statistics while taking into consideration the characteristics such as education, domestic responsibilities, job choice, job experience, and skill differences of the two people. A study in Britain found that women as a group earn 17 percent less per hour than men when both work full-time. However the same study found that women made different choices throughout life. Young women incomes were 91% of British men, but British mothers were just 67% of men who were fathers. The University of Michigan Law School found that the gap between men and women pay is relatively small at the start of their careers. But 15 years later, women only earned 60% of what men made. Another study found that the gender pay gap is 5 percent for part time workers 21-35, and under 3 percent for full time workers of the same age without children. There is NO GAP between those ages of people male or female who live alone. In 1969, academic women who had never been married, earned MORE than academic men who had never been married. Married women earned a little less, while married women with children earned even further less. In 1971 women working continuously since high school were earning slightly more than men under the same description. This was before affirmative action by the way.
Some statistics can be misleading. In 1990 young male physicians earned 41 percent more than young female physicians. However after adjusting for specialty, practice setting, and other characteristics, no earning difference was evident. More men went into higher specialty physician practices. In fact the study found that young male physicians also worked over 500 hours more than female physicians per year. In 1999 women's hourly earnings were 83.8 percent of women in the same year. But comparing women and men who were comparable in occupation, industry, and other variables, the per-hour difference is only 6.2 percent. Industrial and Labor Relations Review found that only 2.4 percent of top-level management positions were filled by women. The pay was 45% less than men as well. The reason for the compensation gap was that women were more likely to be executives in smaller corporations where pay was less. Women have less experience and therefore usually were managers in smaller corporations. Taking these differences and other male-female comparisons, the study only found a 5% gap between male and female pay when all observable differences are taken in account.
Statistics you get from third parties that have an agenda do not like to take all these concerns into consideration. Employers of corporations have to take those differences into account. Economics usually paints a different picture for us than does ideology of an agenda driven person. I hope in the future when you hear how Americans discriminate against foreigners, minorities, and women, there might be a reason. And if you have a problem with those differences you have to take that up with God who decided that women should be the ones that give birth not men.
When people get married, money becomes a bigger priority. One must buy clothing, shelter, food, and other necessities for a family not just themselves. Due to this, married men work more than single men. Thus marriage has had an effect on the income gap between men and women. After marriage, men make more than they did when they were single, and more than other still single men do because of the higher number of hours worked and more full-time employment. Furthermore, when getting married, women make less as they spend less time working a professional job and more time caring for the home. Women who have never been married have higher incomes than women who have, and women with no children have higher incomes than women with children according to economist Thomas Sowell.
Lets conclude this study by looking at male versus female statistics while taking into consideration the characteristics such as education, domestic responsibilities, job choice, job experience, and skill differences of the two people. A study in Britain found that women as a group earn 17 percent less per hour than men when both work full-time. However the same study found that women made different choices throughout life. Young women incomes were 91% of British men, but British mothers were just 67% of men who were fathers. The University of Michigan Law School found that the gap between men and women pay is relatively small at the start of their careers. But 15 years later, women only earned 60% of what men made. Another study found that the gender pay gap is 5 percent for part time workers 21-35, and under 3 percent for full time workers of the same age without children. There is NO GAP between those ages of people male or female who live alone. In 1969, academic women who had never been married, earned MORE than academic men who had never been married. Married women earned a little less, while married women with children earned even further less. In 1971 women working continuously since high school were earning slightly more than men under the same description. This was before affirmative action by the way.
Some statistics can be misleading. In 1990 young male physicians earned 41 percent more than young female physicians. However after adjusting for specialty, practice setting, and other characteristics, no earning difference was evident. More men went into higher specialty physician practices. In fact the study found that young male physicians also worked over 500 hours more than female physicians per year. In 1999 women's hourly earnings were 83.8 percent of women in the same year. But comparing women and men who were comparable in occupation, industry, and other variables, the per-hour difference is only 6.2 percent. Industrial and Labor Relations Review found that only 2.4 percent of top-level management positions were filled by women. The pay was 45% less than men as well. The reason for the compensation gap was that women were more likely to be executives in smaller corporations where pay was less. Women have less experience and therefore usually were managers in smaller corporations. Taking these differences and other male-female comparisons, the study only found a 5% gap between male and female pay when all observable differences are taken in account.
Statistics you get from third parties that have an agenda do not like to take all these concerns into consideration. Employers of corporations have to take those differences into account. Economics usually paints a different picture for us than does ideology of an agenda driven person. I hope in the future when you hear how Americans discriminate against foreigners, minorities, and women, there might be a reason. And if you have a problem with those differences you have to take that up with God who decided that women should be the ones that give birth not men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
