Most of you that would ever read my blog know that I have had a recent transformation. Physically I am in the best shape of my life since I was probably in my third year in college. Here is how:
I have lost to this point 84 pounds since around August. My goal is 100 by August and 110 by September. To do this I have had to make a ton of changes but those changes were not as hard as many would think.
Nothing is as hard when you have motivation. I have had a lot of support from new friends and one in particular in the last year. I love them all so much. I have been inspired and motivated for many reasons that I will not go into but the reality is just as my brother Brad Raby mentioned in church a couple weekends ago, motivation is so important. You who want to and are trying to lose weight... find friends and close love ones that will hold you accountable. And not just other people who need to lose weight as well. But others who are already fit. Others who are experienced and already know how to do it. And make sure they are people that don't let you slack off much. In other words family might not be best. Even old friends are not best. new friends. Friends you really like and want to impress and know that will hold you accountable.
Start off knowing that it will be hard for the first month but that if you stick to it for a month it will get easier thereafter. All things are harder at first. But if you do the right thing you will add motivation along the way. I noticed my body changing after a month and that added motivation. After two months change was obvious and after 3 or 4 people around me started to ask. And as obvious from a recent picture that I have posted change has really taken place the last couple of months.
Don't change your diet change your lifestyle. Diets die out. You need to count calories. More out than in. Scientifically figure out how many calories you can have a day and go with that. Don't try to cut out certain foods. Cut down calories that will help you decide what to cut out. What you value. The reality is that I enjoy fun from time to time. I cut out soft drinks.. Not because of the sugar but because I value other foods more. I still eat desserts but I eat a certain quantity and do not over eat as often. I eat a better breakfast to save calories for later in the day. I eat slower during the day so that I feel more full and have calories left over for the evening. I use my phone app to count calories. myfitnesspal.com It works wonders
Mix up your workouts. I started off riding my indoor bike. Its funny I would ride my bike and after so many calories I would allow myself to read a Tennessee Sports article on Govols247 a recruiting and tennessee sports site that I am a member of. From there I went to walking and some p90x. Then I started kickboxing locally at a great place. Now I am part of a gym where I run on the treadmill and lift weights. I have a local neighborhood I run at and when I want to run longer distances that are flat I do so on a big road that has a good sidewalk. The point is I don't bore myself. Mix it up a bit. Muscle confusion.
Most important of all these is the first. I have had support from my family but I'm not around my family. I have some close people to me here in Crossville that have really helped me. I cherish this help. Without it I would not have done this and would not continue to do it. Find some accountability partners guys find some people to do this with you. Find some motivation! That's what people need.
Thanks to all who have helped. You know who you are... Love you!!
PS This will continue... Live Long
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Thursday, June 6, 2013
The Folly of Franklin Roosevelt and the Myth about the Great Depression
If you read any list of greatest presidents in American history you will almost surely find Franklin D. Roosevelt on that list. In part because of what he did during the World War II Crisis. But also due to guiding us through the Great Depression. The reality is that he did not guide us THROUGH the Great Depression but is one of the main reasons we have what we will forever call "The Great Depression."
The information that you will see in this blog comes from Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams from various articles and the book "The Housing Boom and Bust."
Almost every person in America knows of the Great Depression. We study it in school. In fact the American History class that I teach has three major sections covering the stock market crash, the Great Depression, and the New Deal. All three sections are focused on the time period of the late 20's and 30's and even early 40's during a time that we call The Great Depression. For many years FDR was given credit for ending it with the New Deal. Then many said that WWII ended it but FDR's New Deal actually kept things from getting worse. But many modern economist of the last 30 years are now often blaming FDR's New Deal for having caused much of the Great Depression or at the least prolonging its demise to our nation. Lets look into it a bit.
The huge stock market crash of 1929 has for years been considered the cause of the massive unemployment of the 1930's, the period we refer to as the Great Depression. Unemployment was as high as 25 percent in 1933 and the annual rate remained above 20 percent for four consecutive years 1932 to 1935. Thousands of banks failed and stock prices fell to a fraction of their peaks in 1929. For two consecutive years, American corporations as a whole operated in the red(Sowell). Foreclosures of homes and especially farms followed and many people had to live in what we term shanty towns that were nicknamed "Hoovervilles" after the president of the time, Herbert Hoover.
His successor was Roosevelt who is regarded as the man that guided us out of the Great Depression. Roosevelt understood the need for the federal government to get involved with disasters like this that were caused by the free market of capitalism and correct the problem. But this picture or belief has again, recently been challenged by economists although historians, often primarily liberal and in love with FDR are reluctant to revise their history.
Here are the facts, Two months after the stock market crashed in October, unemployment rose and peaked at 9 percent and then began to gradually decline over the next several months all the way down to 6.3 percent by June of 1930. Then in June of 1930, Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs which raised taxes on imports to their highest in history. This was an effort to reduce imports and increase domestic production and exports to preserve American jobs. In November of 1930, unemployment reached double digits for the first time in the decade at 11.6 percent. Unemployment began to rise after the federal government got involved. It was more than a year after the stock market had crashed. In fact after two months unemployment had peaked and began to fall until the tariff bill was passed into law. Not all of this was due to the tariff laws though. Lets look deeper into it.
FDR as president involved the federal government even more so. He passed laws like the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which controlled prices and wages in industry. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 established federal control over prices and output in agriculture. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 mandated employers to negotiate wages and working conditions with labor unions. FDR also took us off the gold standard and issued thousands of executive orders.
"During the first year of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, he called for increasing federal spending to $10 billion while revenues were only $3 billion. Between 1933 and 1936, government expenditures rose by more than 83 percent. Federal debt skyrocketed by 73 percent. Roosevelt signed off on legislation that raised the top income tax rate to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent. Hillsdale College economics historian and professor Burt Folsom, author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?", notes that in 1941, Roosevelt even proposed a 99.5 percent marginal tax rate on all incomes more than $100,000. When a top adviser questioned the idea, Roosevelt replied, "Why not?""
In the five months leading up to the passage of the National Recovery Act, signs of recovery were evident in our economy. Factory employment was up 23% and payrolls altogether were up 35%. Then the law was passed and what was the result of raising wages and shortening work hours? In the six months after the law was passed, industrial production dropped some 25 percent according to economist Dr. Walter Williams. Even more interesting is that the Supreme Court eventually ruled this law unconstitutional. Unemployment then fell to 14 percent in 1936 and even lower by 1937.
Roosevelt had more ideas such as the Wagner Act also known as the National Labor Relations Act. This law was to improve the power of Labor Unions to help workers in the workplace.
In 1938, Roosevelt's New Deal produced the nation's first depression within a depression. The stock market crashed again, losing nearly 50 percent of its value between August 1937 and March 1938, and unemployment climbed back to 20 percent. -Williams
Roosevelt was not hated though. The chief Nazi paper at the time bragged on his policies. Roosevelt even considered the dictator Benito Mussolini as an "admirable" man whom he was impressed with and had accomplished.
FDR's very own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, saw the folly of the New Deal, writing: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!"
The reality is that what was a four year sharp downturn was extended to a 16 year depression due to destructive policies of Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.
Roosevelt's administration created unpredictable interventions in the economy and businesses were impeded due to the federal involvement in the economy that caused uncertainty. Business investments remained unusually low during the New Deal era. While the government was becoming more involved, one financial historian said that throughout the 1930's "the amount banks lent for each dollar of reserved remained at about half the level of the 1920's." Unemployment remained at double digits for the entirety of Roosevelt's first two terms in office despite much economic and statistical analysis that concluded that government policies in the 1930's prolonged the depression by several years.
The stock market crashed again in 1987 in a similar way to that in 1929. Unlike Hoover and Roosevelt, Reagan did little to intervene in 1987 despite media criticisms of his inaction. The result was that the economy had to recover on its own. This led to what the British magazine The Economist later called 20 years of a combination of steady growth and low inflation. Two sharp downturns in the early 1920's were allowed to recover on their own as well and quickly did so. Remember the nickname of the 1920's? "The Roaring Twenties".
There is much more information available to describe the impact of the New Deal and statistics as far is how the economy reacted when laws were passed or repelled. Unfortunately our education system is mostly ran by big government. And any history that belittles or speaks of the weaknesses of big government might lend to a desire for reduced government involvement in our lives today.
FDR was one of the worst presidents in history domestically. I for one history teacher will speak of his strengths and weaknesses and allow others to develop their own opinions based on all sides of the history story. The Great Depression was truly caused by massive government failure that this blog only touches the surface of. I hope this opens the eyes of many readers who often buy into the belief that since so many people say it, it must be true that Roosevelt was a great president. I find it hard to believe anyone that was bragged on by two Fascist leaders could truly be that great.
The information that you will see in this blog comes from Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams from various articles and the book "The Housing Boom and Bust."
Almost every person in America knows of the Great Depression. We study it in school. In fact the American History class that I teach has three major sections covering the stock market crash, the Great Depression, and the New Deal. All three sections are focused on the time period of the late 20's and 30's and even early 40's during a time that we call The Great Depression. For many years FDR was given credit for ending it with the New Deal. Then many said that WWII ended it but FDR's New Deal actually kept things from getting worse. But many modern economist of the last 30 years are now often blaming FDR's New Deal for having caused much of the Great Depression or at the least prolonging its demise to our nation. Lets look into it a bit.
The huge stock market crash of 1929 has for years been considered the cause of the massive unemployment of the 1930's, the period we refer to as the Great Depression. Unemployment was as high as 25 percent in 1933 and the annual rate remained above 20 percent for four consecutive years 1932 to 1935. Thousands of banks failed and stock prices fell to a fraction of their peaks in 1929. For two consecutive years, American corporations as a whole operated in the red(Sowell). Foreclosures of homes and especially farms followed and many people had to live in what we term shanty towns that were nicknamed "Hoovervilles" after the president of the time, Herbert Hoover.
His successor was Roosevelt who is regarded as the man that guided us out of the Great Depression. Roosevelt understood the need for the federal government to get involved with disasters like this that were caused by the free market of capitalism and correct the problem. But this picture or belief has again, recently been challenged by economists although historians, often primarily liberal and in love with FDR are reluctant to revise their history.
Here are the facts, Two months after the stock market crashed in October, unemployment rose and peaked at 9 percent and then began to gradually decline over the next several months all the way down to 6.3 percent by June of 1930. Then in June of 1930, Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs which raised taxes on imports to their highest in history. This was an effort to reduce imports and increase domestic production and exports to preserve American jobs. In November of 1930, unemployment reached double digits for the first time in the decade at 11.6 percent. Unemployment began to rise after the federal government got involved. It was more than a year after the stock market had crashed. In fact after two months unemployment had peaked and began to fall until the tariff bill was passed into law. Not all of this was due to the tariff laws though. Lets look deeper into it.
FDR as president involved the federal government even more so. He passed laws like the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which controlled prices and wages in industry. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 established federal control over prices and output in agriculture. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 mandated employers to negotiate wages and working conditions with labor unions. FDR also took us off the gold standard and issued thousands of executive orders.
"During the first year of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, he called for increasing federal spending to $10 billion while revenues were only $3 billion. Between 1933 and 1936, government expenditures rose by more than 83 percent. Federal debt skyrocketed by 73 percent. Roosevelt signed off on legislation that raised the top income tax rate to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent. Hillsdale College economics historian and professor Burt Folsom, author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?", notes that in 1941, Roosevelt even proposed a 99.5 percent marginal tax rate on all incomes more than $100,000. When a top adviser questioned the idea, Roosevelt replied, "Why not?""
In the five months leading up to the passage of the National Recovery Act, signs of recovery were evident in our economy. Factory employment was up 23% and payrolls altogether were up 35%. Then the law was passed and what was the result of raising wages and shortening work hours? In the six months after the law was passed, industrial production dropped some 25 percent according to economist Dr. Walter Williams. Even more interesting is that the Supreme Court eventually ruled this law unconstitutional. Unemployment then fell to 14 percent in 1936 and even lower by 1937.
Roosevelt had more ideas such as the Wagner Act also known as the National Labor Relations Act. This law was to improve the power of Labor Unions to help workers in the workplace.
In 1938, Roosevelt's New Deal produced the nation's first depression within a depression. The stock market crashed again, losing nearly 50 percent of its value between August 1937 and March 1938, and unemployment climbed back to 20 percent. -Williams
Roosevelt was not hated though. The chief Nazi paper at the time bragged on his policies. Roosevelt even considered the dictator Benito Mussolini as an "admirable" man whom he was impressed with and had accomplished.
FDR's very own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, saw the folly of the New Deal, writing: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!"
The reality is that what was a four year sharp downturn was extended to a 16 year depression due to destructive policies of Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.
Roosevelt's administration created unpredictable interventions in the economy and businesses were impeded due to the federal involvement in the economy that caused uncertainty. Business investments remained unusually low during the New Deal era. While the government was becoming more involved, one financial historian said that throughout the 1930's "the amount banks lent for each dollar of reserved remained at about half the level of the 1920's." Unemployment remained at double digits for the entirety of Roosevelt's first two terms in office despite much economic and statistical analysis that concluded that government policies in the 1930's prolonged the depression by several years.
The stock market crashed again in 1987 in a similar way to that in 1929. Unlike Hoover and Roosevelt, Reagan did little to intervene in 1987 despite media criticisms of his inaction. The result was that the economy had to recover on its own. This led to what the British magazine The Economist later called 20 years of a combination of steady growth and low inflation. Two sharp downturns in the early 1920's were allowed to recover on their own as well and quickly did so. Remember the nickname of the 1920's? "The Roaring Twenties".
There is much more information available to describe the impact of the New Deal and statistics as far is how the economy reacted when laws were passed or repelled. Unfortunately our education system is mostly ran by big government. And any history that belittles or speaks of the weaknesses of big government might lend to a desire for reduced government involvement in our lives today.
FDR was one of the worst presidents in history domestically. I for one history teacher will speak of his strengths and weaknesses and allow others to develop their own opinions based on all sides of the history story. The Great Depression was truly caused by massive government failure that this blog only touches the surface of. I hope this opens the eyes of many readers who often buy into the belief that since so many people say it, it must be true that Roosevelt was a great president. I find it hard to believe anyone that was bragged on by two Fascist leaders could truly be that great.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Last four months of my life
A lot has changed in my life recently. Mainly my looks. For the last decade of my life I have had a weight issue. That's what it is. The quickest way to start losing weight is to admit that you are in trouble. I was in trouble. Health still good overall but I was at a point where I knew change was needed now not later.
I have lost as of Saturday morning January 19, 66 pounds. I would not like to lose about 34 more pounds. I have learned a couple things through the process that I want to mention here in this post.
First, a person has to be motivated intrinsically to get much done in their life. External motivation is good but true motivation comes from within. As a coach I expect a lot from my players. How can I expect so much from them if I do not expect a lot from myself. I wanted to fix myself so that I could stop being a hypocrite. I was motivated to lose weight so that I could feel better about myself as well. A person can forget what they are missing if they have not experienced it in a long time. I feel so much better now. I had forgotten what this felt like. I'm not there yet don't get me wrong. Still a long ways to go. But I feel so much better now. A friend has told me: "no food taste as good as skinny feels". Or something like that. And that is true.
Second, stop acting like you don't need help in your life. So many people think they are strong enough to not need help from others. They think that is a sign of weakness. In this life you need community. I have that. My mom is working hard now to lose weight as well. That is motivation. I have a head coach who is in great shape and motivates me and he does not even know that. Even comments from people on the outside about how I use to look has motivated me. I have heard those comments before but the combination of factors motivated me. Biggest of all is that I have met people in my life recently that have changed it. I have good people in my life that motivate me to lose weight but have also shown me how to. My brother first introduced me to an app on my phone. I finally downloaded it when a local friend also showed me how it works. My life has changed because of people. I have learned to cook. I'm not bad at it. I have been shown healthy food that is good for you. My life is better now thanks to people. I will never be able to thank them enough.
I have lost as of Saturday morning January 19, 66 pounds. I would not like to lose about 34 more pounds. I have learned a couple things through the process that I want to mention here in this post.
First, a person has to be motivated intrinsically to get much done in their life. External motivation is good but true motivation comes from within. As a coach I expect a lot from my players. How can I expect so much from them if I do not expect a lot from myself. I wanted to fix myself so that I could stop being a hypocrite. I was motivated to lose weight so that I could feel better about myself as well. A person can forget what they are missing if they have not experienced it in a long time. I feel so much better now. I had forgotten what this felt like. I'm not there yet don't get me wrong. Still a long ways to go. But I feel so much better now. A friend has told me: "no food taste as good as skinny feels". Or something like that. And that is true.
Second, stop acting like you don't need help in your life. So many people think they are strong enough to not need help from others. They think that is a sign of weakness. In this life you need community. I have that. My mom is working hard now to lose weight as well. That is motivation. I have a head coach who is in great shape and motivates me and he does not even know that. Even comments from people on the outside about how I use to look has motivated me. I have heard those comments before but the combination of factors motivated me. Biggest of all is that I have met people in my life recently that have changed it. I have good people in my life that motivate me to lose weight but have also shown me how to. My brother first introduced me to an app on my phone. I finally downloaded it when a local friend also showed me how it works. My life has changed because of people. I have learned to cook. I'm not bad at it. I have been shown healthy food that is good for you. My life is better now thanks to people. I will never be able to thank them enough.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
I am a Radical... You should be one too
This week I have been bombarded, in a good way, with
discussion, debate, conversation and many other vices that have centered on the
idea of being a “radical”. Discussion that
revolves around whether bipartisanism is important or whether a person is too
extreme and should not fight for what they believe. I have had class discussions in history class
about how people are offended or feel like a person should not try to convince
them of their ideology. A mindset of “to
each their own”. That is one of the most
ludicrous statements I think I have ever heard.
The idea that a good Christian is one that would never try
to persuade another human of their faith is contradictory to even being a
Christian in the first place. The call
of Christians is to tell others about Christ.
Even aside from religion, if one has an opinion or ideology or a
viewpoint, that person should be led to try and get others to see things that
way as well.
Readers, we should all be Radicals in life. A radical for what we believe in is the way
to be. What is the point of being Luke
warm? I am a radical and proud of that
stance. I believe with a strong passion
and desire for things to be done the way I view them. I want our country to elect a man to office
that has my exact views. That will never
happen unless I’m President.
There should be no such thing as a moderate. We hear this idea that we need more moderates
and that the extreme right and left are destroying our political democratic
process. Readers let me be the first to
tell you that a moderate is someone who is unsure of themselves. A moderate is someone who might not even have
an opinion on an issue. If you vote for
President Obama, you are a radical who believes in what you believe. And that is likely large government in our
lives. No moderate would vote for this
President. If you vote for Mitt Romney
you are a radical in what you believe.
We should all be Radicals.
There are people out there that believe that a person who
believes that a child’s life begins before delivery in the hospital room or wherever
it might be, and thus is against abortion is a Radical. Well great.
That person should be a radical.
They should radically stand by that decision and belief. But don’t act like you are a “moderate”
person for believing that a woman should have a choice on what to do with that
child or “her body”. If you view it that
way you are too a radical. We are both
radicals.
I have arguments with people that believe they are right
because they are in the middle. That
makes no sense to me. No one in the
middle will ever sway my opinion on anything.
If you do not have conviction of your beliefs and passion for it then you
will never impact anyone. I have passion
for economic principals. I believe that
the Tea Party is radical. Not in a bad
way like the media and those on the left want you to believe. They are radicals because they are passionate
about what they stand for. What they
stand for is not extreme. They believe
that the size and scope of government has gotten way too big. If that is radical than I’m a radical and
proud of it.
Strive to be radical readers. Stop believing this nonsense that the far
right and the far left is destroying the nation. That we need common ground to fix this nation. Ladies and Gentlemen, the lasting domestic legacies
of former President George W. Bush that people hate are where he
compromised. He made everyone
unhappy. No Child Left Behind,
Prescription Drug Program, McCain-Feingold, Immigration policy. No one was happy because he camped out in the
middle. Even on tax issues he cut taxes
sure. But he did it in a “moderate”
way. He should have reformed the tax
code instead. He should have been a
radical!!
Readers stand firm.
Have debate. Try to convince people
of your sides. And never argue against someone
because they are a “Radical” and therefore their views are too extreme to be
used. Our founders were radical. Karl Marx was a radical. Adam Smith was a radical. So what!
The question is not whether they are radical or not… it’s who is right? I
am passionate that I am right. And until
I die I will try to convince others of my views and my ways. I will do it respectfully but with passion
and energy. I am a radical and I am
proud of it. You should be too.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Why I care more
How can we not have the FDA? They check our food to make sure it is not contaminated. They are to make sure that our drugs are safe for the marketplace to be sold to consumers. Anyone for ending the FDA has to be evil as they apparently do not care about protecting a person's health just like us terrible guys do not care for women's health by arguing that I should not be forced to pay for her birth control.
But what if I said that I care too much for our health to be willing to keep the FDA around. I mean lets look at some of the situations that are created with the FDA.
Can the government be sued for messing up when it comes to regulating and inspecting drugs? Are government employees often fired for bring poor at their jobs? The answer to each of these is a NO! Because of this we get the worst of both worlds. An FDA that is very slow to approve drugs on the market because there is no incentive for them to approve a drug that can help people unless its very very safe because they are not going to make a profit by approving the drug anyways. But at the same time they will not be sued or fired often for approving a drug or not inspecting food thorough enough.
If the FDA was demolished, then a private insurance company would have to back up a drug company or food company and their product. That insurance company is in it to make money so you very well better believe that they will make sure food is not contaminated. They do not want lawsuits so they will get these things right way more often than wrong because the risk of being wrong is being sued in court, having profitable contracts voided, being fired as an employee, or going out of business altogether due to not doing a satisfactory job.
At the same time, there is an incentive to approve drugs to the market that would allow doctors and patients to make more decisions for themselves. Insurance companies can say that this drug has a high risk and thus to insure it we charge much more. But drug companies want to approve drugs because that will make the companies more profitable and make them more money as well insuring more drugs. Thus good drugs that have side effects but can still be helpful despite those side effects will be approved more often than they are by the current FDA.
Many people want to act like Libertarians do not care about people because we want to get rid of rent control laws, minimum wage laws, regulations, the FDA, OSHA, and other things... But in reality... we want to get rid of many of those things because we care MORE than others. Its like if I'm against some kind of government law or oversight than that means someone else cares and I do not. But as a libertarian I look at the incentives of laws and the consequences and base my opinions and views there not based on the nation that we need protection from everything. I care more so I put more time into studying the results than someone who supports simple government protection.
Unfortunately Libertarians are not winning the argument on this because so many of them want to focus on things like legalizing gay marriage, pot, getting our military behind our boarders only, and abortion "rights". Thus they alienate so many and in fact more often than not the base that usually supports their economic ideas, the conservatives, and thus little is accomplished. Hopefully younger conservative libertarians like myself will change this and can shrink government.
But what if I said that I care too much for our health to be willing to keep the FDA around. I mean lets look at some of the situations that are created with the FDA.
Can the government be sued for messing up when it comes to regulating and inspecting drugs? Are government employees often fired for bring poor at their jobs? The answer to each of these is a NO! Because of this we get the worst of both worlds. An FDA that is very slow to approve drugs on the market because there is no incentive for them to approve a drug that can help people unless its very very safe because they are not going to make a profit by approving the drug anyways. But at the same time they will not be sued or fired often for approving a drug or not inspecting food thorough enough.
If the FDA was demolished, then a private insurance company would have to back up a drug company or food company and their product. That insurance company is in it to make money so you very well better believe that they will make sure food is not contaminated. They do not want lawsuits so they will get these things right way more often than wrong because the risk of being wrong is being sued in court, having profitable contracts voided, being fired as an employee, or going out of business altogether due to not doing a satisfactory job.
At the same time, there is an incentive to approve drugs to the market that would allow doctors and patients to make more decisions for themselves. Insurance companies can say that this drug has a high risk and thus to insure it we charge much more. But drug companies want to approve drugs because that will make the companies more profitable and make them more money as well insuring more drugs. Thus good drugs that have side effects but can still be helpful despite those side effects will be approved more often than they are by the current FDA.
Many people want to act like Libertarians do not care about people because we want to get rid of rent control laws, minimum wage laws, regulations, the FDA, OSHA, and other things... But in reality... we want to get rid of many of those things because we care MORE than others. Its like if I'm against some kind of government law or oversight than that means someone else cares and I do not. But as a libertarian I look at the incentives of laws and the consequences and base my opinions and views there not based on the nation that we need protection from everything. I care more so I put more time into studying the results than someone who supports simple government protection.
Unfortunately Libertarians are not winning the argument on this because so many of them want to focus on things like legalizing gay marriage, pot, getting our military behind our boarders only, and abortion "rights". Thus they alienate so many and in fact more often than not the base that usually supports their economic ideas, the conservatives, and thus little is accomplished. Hopefully younger conservative libertarians like myself will change this and can shrink government.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Gas Prices
Just a quick blog entry today...
Watching a news show that did a segment on gas prices sparked my interest in a new debate that is anti-oil companies and their effect on gas prices.
No industry is probably attacked in our "capitalistic" economy more than oil companies. There is a new argument used to blame them for the high gas prices that has recently been in the news due to what is happening in California.
The new argument is that these companies are exporting too much gasoline to other countries that are buying it and thus lowering the local supply of gasoline here in America, and driving prices higher here in America. Now that impact on the actual price here in America is very minimum anyways but lets go with this argument and entertain the thought.
What are we to do? Tell "big oil" to not sell their gasoline to the best buyer willing to offer the best price. Are we to expect oil companies to do the "patriotic" thing and turn down foreign buyers in order to supply more gasoline here in America? The reality is that global demand is outpacing the global supply and this drives prices up. If our oil companies were to do normal business they would sell this gasoline to the best buyer. I would argue that if they chose to keep that gasoline here, the supply in other countries would go down, thus driving up global OIL prices and thus it would end up costing more to purchase oil and possibly offset the lowering price of gasoline if oil companies were to keep that gas here.
The other argument is that the government should get involved and force oil companies to keep that here or to somehow maybe restrict or tax those exports in a way that would punish oil companies for doing that. But do you really expect other countries to not react? If you believe that our wonderful government can restrict our products from going abroad and do this without other countries responded by restricting goods coming here then you are drinking the cool-aid. This would of course hurt our economy in other areas where other countries pass restrictions against America.
I have blogged on a more long term solution in the past. But this is a new argument that is designed to demagogue oil companies once again. I just wanted to let you know... its not nearly that simple. Read those past blogs to understand more about how to get gas prices down.
Watching a news show that did a segment on gas prices sparked my interest in a new debate that is anti-oil companies and their effect on gas prices.
No industry is probably attacked in our "capitalistic" economy more than oil companies. There is a new argument used to blame them for the high gas prices that has recently been in the news due to what is happening in California.
The new argument is that these companies are exporting too much gasoline to other countries that are buying it and thus lowering the local supply of gasoline here in America, and driving prices higher here in America. Now that impact on the actual price here in America is very minimum anyways but lets go with this argument and entertain the thought.
What are we to do? Tell "big oil" to not sell their gasoline to the best buyer willing to offer the best price. Are we to expect oil companies to do the "patriotic" thing and turn down foreign buyers in order to supply more gasoline here in America? The reality is that global demand is outpacing the global supply and this drives prices up. If our oil companies were to do normal business they would sell this gasoline to the best buyer. I would argue that if they chose to keep that gasoline here, the supply in other countries would go down, thus driving up global OIL prices and thus it would end up costing more to purchase oil and possibly offset the lowering price of gasoline if oil companies were to keep that gas here.
The other argument is that the government should get involved and force oil companies to keep that here or to somehow maybe restrict or tax those exports in a way that would punish oil companies for doing that. But do you really expect other countries to not react? If you believe that our wonderful government can restrict our products from going abroad and do this without other countries responded by restricting goods coming here then you are drinking the cool-aid. This would of course hurt our economy in other areas where other countries pass restrictions against America.
I have blogged on a more long term solution in the past. But this is a new argument that is designed to demagogue oil companies once again. I just wanted to let you know... its not nearly that simple. Read those past blogs to understand more about how to get gas prices down.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
The Clinton Impact on the Election
The most moving and probably surprising speech of the RNC and DNC conventions was in my humble opinion the speech given by Ann Romney. She talked about a side of her husband that very few people see. It allowed voters the ability to relate to Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
The speech by Sandra Flucke at the DNC was depressing and embarrassing in my opinion. Filled with lies and distortions and a passion not truly about women's health but a passion for tyranny that would force people to pay for birth control of women does not move me. I understand that Birth Control is about more than just being able to have sexual intercourse and almost eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. I understand that many ladies take it to help their hormones and even recently I have heard it can help acne. There might be some validity to its effect on cancer. But the idea that a private business should be forced to pay for birth control if they wish not to is just not mainstream. its Radical. I'm not against birth control and I'm sure I pay for it since I have health insurance through the state of TN. But I have an issue with FORCING a private institute to do so. As a Conservative Libertarian that just goes way too far.
But the speech that might have the most impact was entirely too long but delivered beautifully. That was the speech given by Bill Clinton. Clinton is a terrific speaker and can explain pretty complicated issues to regular Americans who do not spend a great portion of their life studying the issues he talks about. But I want to point out something that very few people know about. This information has been researched and recently I read an article on Forbes magazine that uses that research that gave me the idea to blog about it.
Clinton and others who support the President and want to increase taxes on the "rich" do so out of a desire for "fairness" and to help pay off the debt. I have mentioned many times that increased taxes on the rich will make a minimum impact on the actual debt which is a spending issue. I have also spoken on the "fairness" issue and how the rich already pay most all the federal income taxes in this country. But the argument that many use against raising taxes is that it can hurt the economy. Raising taxes will slow growth. That argument, which I make daily, is often argued against by referencing the successful economic times under the most popular living president, President Bill Clinton. But what is interesting is that the understanding of what happened under Clinton is so often misunderstood.
No doubt the 90's were a prosperous time in America. No doubt Clinton did some good things while President. And I would like to have him back as compared to the current president. But lets look at the facts:
"The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes." -Forbes
These taxes though were met with a 1994 election that brought a major change to congress with the Republicans gaining control under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. I'ms sure there were other circumstances that led to this but even Clinton apparently has said he felt that he increased taxes too much. .
During the first four years of Clinton's presidency the economy grew but not at an alarming impressive rate. people were being employed at about 2 million a year but wages were growing very slowly as well and even with inflation in check, GDP was growing at about 3%. Not real strong considering we had just left a recession. But these numbers are not bad and we would enjoy them now. But here is the interesting part.
In 1995 Clinton changed his view on taxes apparently. Welfare reform took place, We reduced tariffs and other barriers to free trade with NAFTA. In 1997 Capital Gain taxes were lowered by 8 percent. He also exempted more people from the, in my opinion immoral, death tax. Government spending was slowed. And a strong dollar policy kept inflation low, which in essence is like a tax break in that we have more money left to spend in other areas. What were the results:
GDP increased by a full percentage point to over 4% a year between 1996 and 2000. Unemployment fell to 4%. Real wages increased much faster, the S&P increased by 78%, Revenues to the federal government increased.
The point here is that there was significant prosperity under the Clinton Administration. But most of that prosperity came later in his tenure when his policies more favored that of the congress. Those policies are far different than President Obama's. It is impossible to compare the two eras. Understand that a technological boom and other things that came together in the 90's would have led to economic growth almost no matter what. That is why I do not compare the times very often. But given that former President Bill Clinton's speech in which be bragged about what he did, although much of that was forced by congress, will likely have a large impact on a large segment of the population, I wanted to mention this to a few voters... those of you who read my blog.
Thanks,
Raby
The speech by Sandra Flucke at the DNC was depressing and embarrassing in my opinion. Filled with lies and distortions and a passion not truly about women's health but a passion for tyranny that would force people to pay for birth control of women does not move me. I understand that Birth Control is about more than just being able to have sexual intercourse and almost eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. I understand that many ladies take it to help their hormones and even recently I have heard it can help acne. There might be some validity to its effect on cancer. But the idea that a private business should be forced to pay for birth control if they wish not to is just not mainstream. its Radical. I'm not against birth control and I'm sure I pay for it since I have health insurance through the state of TN. But I have an issue with FORCING a private institute to do so. As a Conservative Libertarian that just goes way too far.
But the speech that might have the most impact was entirely too long but delivered beautifully. That was the speech given by Bill Clinton. Clinton is a terrific speaker and can explain pretty complicated issues to regular Americans who do not spend a great portion of their life studying the issues he talks about. But I want to point out something that very few people know about. This information has been researched and recently I read an article on Forbes magazine that uses that research that gave me the idea to blog about it.
Clinton and others who support the President and want to increase taxes on the "rich" do so out of a desire for "fairness" and to help pay off the debt. I have mentioned many times that increased taxes on the rich will make a minimum impact on the actual debt which is a spending issue. I have also spoken on the "fairness" issue and how the rich already pay most all the federal income taxes in this country. But the argument that many use against raising taxes is that it can hurt the economy. Raising taxes will slow growth. That argument, which I make daily, is often argued against by referencing the successful economic times under the most popular living president, President Bill Clinton. But what is interesting is that the understanding of what happened under Clinton is so often misunderstood.
No doubt the 90's were a prosperous time in America. No doubt Clinton did some good things while President. And I would like to have him back as compared to the current president. But lets look at the facts:
"The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes." -Forbes
These taxes though were met with a 1994 election that brought a major change to congress with the Republicans gaining control under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. I'ms sure there were other circumstances that led to this but even Clinton apparently has said he felt that he increased taxes too much. .
During the first four years of Clinton's presidency the economy grew but not at an alarming impressive rate. people were being employed at about 2 million a year but wages were growing very slowly as well and even with inflation in check, GDP was growing at about 3%. Not real strong considering we had just left a recession. But these numbers are not bad and we would enjoy them now. But here is the interesting part.
In 1995 Clinton changed his view on taxes apparently. Welfare reform took place, We reduced tariffs and other barriers to free trade with NAFTA. In 1997 Capital Gain taxes were lowered by 8 percent. He also exempted more people from the, in my opinion immoral, death tax. Government spending was slowed. And a strong dollar policy kept inflation low, which in essence is like a tax break in that we have more money left to spend in other areas. What were the results:
GDP increased by a full percentage point to over 4% a year between 1996 and 2000. Unemployment fell to 4%. Real wages increased much faster, the S&P increased by 78%, Revenues to the federal government increased.
The point here is that there was significant prosperity under the Clinton Administration. But most of that prosperity came later in his tenure when his policies more favored that of the congress. Those policies are far different than President Obama's. It is impossible to compare the two eras. Understand that a technological boom and other things that came together in the 90's would have led to economic growth almost no matter what. That is why I do not compare the times very often. But given that former President Bill Clinton's speech in which be bragged about what he did, although much of that was forced by congress, will likely have a large impact on a large segment of the population, I wanted to mention this to a few voters... those of you who read my blog.
Thanks,
Raby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
