Is discrimination an active event, where a person or persons make a decision to hire or not hire a specific kind of human? Or is the fact that sufficient numbers of that specific kind of human is working or not working for a company all by itself discrimination?
Is discrimination a statistical study or an active event?
Let's say I have a company with 100 employees, do I discriminate if
a) I employ 10 African Americans when they represent 15% of the U. S. population?
b) I employ 38 women when they represent 51% of the U. S. population?
c) I employ 3 gay men and 2 lesbians when they represent 5% and 4% of the U. S. population?
d) I employ 10 Hispanics when they represent 13% of the U. S. population?
e) I employ 6 Koreans when they represent 7% of the U. S. population?
f) I employ 12 people who weigh in excess of 150% of their ideal body weight?
g) I employ 15 alcoholics when they represent 65% of the U. S. population?
h) I employ 15 blondes when they represent 18% of the U. S. population?
i) I don't employ any people of Japanese descent because they tortured my father in World War II?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
FIDEL"S SMART, OBAMA'S NOT.
After fifty years of central command, control and ownership of its economy Cuba is admitting that central control does not work. DOES NOT WORK. President Obama, on the other hand, either is so ideological he is clueless or he wants his own power at any cost to America.
Anyway for the first time in its history Cuba will lay off 500,000 state workers of its roughly 5,000,000 workers. Until this move, unemployment was about 0% in Cuba. Uncle Fidel will seek to boost (from virtually nothing) private enterprise in Cuba. Interestingly enough, to whom will the private entrepreneurs sell stuff? Pay in Cuba is about $20 PER MONTH, not bad unless you want to buy something. And last week FIdel was quoted by a far-left magazine writer that communism no longer works.
DUH!
Now unsaid is whether the so-called wonderful, progressive social safety net, that Obama and his progressives so look up to, will pay enemployment insurance. I'd say start at $20 a month.
Anyway for the first time in its history Cuba will lay off 500,000 state workers of its roughly 5,000,000 workers. Until this move, unemployment was about 0% in Cuba. Uncle Fidel will seek to boost (from virtually nothing) private enterprise in Cuba. Interestingly enough, to whom will the private entrepreneurs sell stuff? Pay in Cuba is about $20 PER MONTH, not bad unless you want to buy something. And last week FIdel was quoted by a far-left magazine writer that communism no longer works.
DUH!
Now unsaid is whether the so-called wonderful, progressive social safety net, that Obama and his progressives so look up to, will pay enemployment insurance. I'd say start at $20 a month.
STERLING EXAMPLE OF THE SUCCESS OF OBAMA'S "BUSINESSES"
President Barack Obama directly or indirectly is the chairman of the United States Postal Service. How is he doing? Great, according to his metrics. It lost $3,500,000,000 last QUARTER, annualized, that number would be $14,000,000,000! Total expected losses over the next ten years? Nearly one-quarter of a TRILLION DOLLARS. PRIVATIZE! No, Obama can't afford to. There are 600,000 voters working for him in the USPS, making an average of $83,000 a year (in wages and benefits, about 50% above the rest of us us, on average). Yes mostly uniionized with a portion of their wages going to elect Democrats. Obama's solution? Raise the cost of postage in this bitter, deep recession; yes, of course, USPS is a government-established monopoly. Even so it's being killed in part by FedEx and UPS. In part by cluless management who want to keep the workers happy and voting Democratic.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
NEW OBAMA BAILOUT.
NEW OBAMA BAILOUT. $30,000,000,000 - $35,000,000,000 to take over 70% of the total assets of the so-called "wholesale" credit union. These are the unseen backoffice providers of services to the consumer credit unions the public deals with. The Obama National Credit Union Administration has not done its job. Under federal regulations and rules wholesale credit unions could only invest in safe, liquid assets. But no. Regulator cute Debbie Matz said the need for a bailout came from unparallelled bad times and also "BAD DECISIONS" BY REGULATORS. Finally a Fed who tells it like it is. She said there should be no taxpayer losses in the governemt buying $25,000,000,000 of lousy paper for $50,000,000,000. Huh? Obviously she was trained by Obama! The losses, whatever they will be, are a shadow of the heading-for-a-trillions of the Federal Housing Agence, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But after Obama's idiotic and failed pathetic attempt to bail out homeowners who got in over their heads, housing prices continue downward. Housingt prices continue downward! Obama's Bernacke Federal Reserve System continues the easy, cheap money strategy that got us into this mess in the first place. Now it's yet another desperate, mindless attempt to help. It is not working even with modern record low interest rates.
Obama your ignorance is sinking the ship we built!
Obama your ignorance is sinking the ship we built!
Friday, September 10, 2010
No, I am not saying we're getting like Nazi Germany...
No, I am not saying we're getting like Nazi Germany here in the United States of America. But there are some "initiatives" that remind me of some of the "initiatives" there, back then.
One is informing on your fellow citizen. I think it immoral and undermining of respect for others when the government of the United States pays citizens to inform on other citizens. This is part and parcel of the July, 2010, legislation entitled the Dodd-Frank/Obama U. S. financial services industry takeover bill, or something like that.
Ratting out others could reap as much as 30% of any recovered funds and penalties collected by the Obama Securities and Exchange Commission. That could add up to huge paydays of millions, multi-millions of dollars. This in addition to so-called whistleblower acts where an individual who successfully pursues a "Qui Tam" action is entitled to a bounty that ranges from between 15% to 30% of the government’s recovery. (Qui tam is short for "qui tam pro domino regequam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur", or "who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own", even though this law preceeds the present president.) These, I think "stool pigeon" is the legal term, people are then protected from whatever the govenment thinks is "retribution" from their squealing, whether done in good faith or not.
The manifest consequences of these actions have been and will be more class-action and other lawsuits, enriching the Democrats' major source of campaign contributions, trial lawyers; more unfounded charges and accusations intended to neuter competitors; and frivolosity simply to get back at hated fellow employees. But most important it builds a current of distrust in America, where fellow citizens are to be watched closely and everyone must look out for one's own back. This will add to the operating expenses of companies from litigation and legal and accounting protections as employees go to the government to score bucks rather than to company executives to solve problems.
It is wrong. It undermines basic trust in America. Courtesy of the Democratic Party.
One is informing on your fellow citizen. I think it immoral and undermining of respect for others when the government of the United States pays citizens to inform on other citizens. This is part and parcel of the July, 2010, legislation entitled the Dodd-Frank/Obama U. S. financial services industry takeover bill, or something like that.
Ratting out others could reap as much as 30% of any recovered funds and penalties collected by the Obama Securities and Exchange Commission. That could add up to huge paydays of millions, multi-millions of dollars. This in addition to so-called whistleblower acts where an individual who successfully pursues a "Qui Tam" action is entitled to a bounty that ranges from between 15% to 30% of the government’s recovery. (Qui tam is short for "qui tam pro domino regequam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur", or "who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own", even though this law preceeds the present president.) These, I think "stool pigeon" is the legal term, people are then protected from whatever the govenment thinks is "retribution" from their squealing, whether done in good faith or not.
The manifest consequences of these actions have been and will be more class-action and other lawsuits, enriching the Democrats' major source of campaign contributions, trial lawyers; more unfounded charges and accusations intended to neuter competitors; and frivolosity simply to get back at hated fellow employees. But most important it builds a current of distrust in America, where fellow citizens are to be watched closely and everyone must look out for one's own back. This will add to the operating expenses of companies from litigation and legal and accounting protections as employees go to the government to score bucks rather than to company executives to solve problems.
It is wrong. It undermines basic trust in America. Courtesy of the Democratic Party.
ARE YOU AWAKE, PRESIDENT OBAMA?
Our major competitor, the People's Republic of China is eating us for lunch. While President Barack Obama is busy jawboning down, investigating, suing, and tying up hundreds of productive, job-producing American companies with oppressive, crippling new regulations and rules. Please see previous posts.
Formerly the most powerful creator of wealth in the world, the most innovative and the most moral, the United States of America is losing ground fast in large part because of the tone and legislation from our bitterly anti-business president and Congress.
The Agricultural Bank of China Ltd has raised the most money ever through the largest initial public offering in the history of the world. President Obama, you might not understand the capital raising process that was essentially invented in the United States of America, but it is one of the most significant reasons the United States of America has enjoyed the most wealth and the highest standard of living in the history of the world. Under your watch, Mr. President, we are losing.
$22,100,000,000. I know that's nothing to you, Mr. President, given your possession and use of the U. S. Treasury, but it's the largest IPO ever...from a Chinese company.
So go after Intel. Go after Google. Go after United Health. Go after free enterprise. Go after them all, sir. Revel in the decline of our country...
An added bonus is that the U. S. fell to fourth in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness study, down two spots. China moved up two spots.
Formerly the most powerful creator of wealth in the world, the most innovative and the most moral, the United States of America is losing ground fast in large part because of the tone and legislation from our bitterly anti-business president and Congress.
The Agricultural Bank of China Ltd has raised the most money ever through the largest initial public offering in the history of the world. President Obama, you might not understand the capital raising process that was essentially invented in the United States of America, but it is one of the most significant reasons the United States of America has enjoyed the most wealth and the highest standard of living in the history of the world. Under your watch, Mr. President, we are losing.
$22,100,000,000. I know that's nothing to you, Mr. President, given your possession and use of the U. S. Treasury, but it's the largest IPO ever...from a Chinese company.
So go after Intel. Go after Google. Go after United Health. Go after free enterprise. Go after them all, sir. Revel in the decline of our country...
An added bonus is that the U. S. fell to fourth in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness study, down two spots. China moved up two spots.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Corruption
The Democrats in Congress (minus two, but plus two Republicans) passed a $26,000,000,000 (that's billion) bill to spend $16 billion bailing out various states which are running gigantic deficits -- with strings attached! But never mind the fine print, in all likelihood it was voted in without anyone reading it. ("Trust us" says Pelosi and Reid.) This will help struggling states' Democratic politicians out during this upcoming election. Being that Democratic-run states -- with their profligate spending for unions -- are in the worst shape, they'll undoubtedly gain more from this, think California, Illinois, and New York. Rather than make their states more efficient, governors know that Obama will simply borrow from China to keep their states afloat. Efficiency, cost cutting? Who needs it anyway, when we've got our Sugar Daddy Barack? We can put off to another day a return to reality, we've got elections to buy! And we've got China, who'll be loaning us the money!
$10,000,000,000 (yes, again billion) will go directly to teachers' unions via the states. Not necessarly to TEACHERS, because admin bureaucrats make up a goodly portion of teachers' [sic] union membership. Just to remind you, teachers-unions' bosses are major supplier of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. A good guess might be that 2% of that $10 billion will go into union coffers, which adds up to a couple hundred million. Something like 90% of teachers' union bosses' campaign contributions go to Democrats and, say, if 20% of dues goes to campaigning, Democrats would augment their campaigns by $30,000,000 (if my math is correct!) directly from the backs of our children and grandchildren in an one-time shot against Republicans. China is simply the intermediary, IF our children and grandchildren can repay China. If not, they will go to work for China (in the U.S.A.!) Actually Democrats say they'll pay for [sic] it by slashing poor people's food stamps (who needs the poor? They can't contribute much to Democrats) And from that old trusty source, evil, blood-sucking,greedy corporations (the same ones who employ people, but not enough union workers. Dems say: We don't need jobs we need union jobs so we can use their dues to get reelected.)
C O R R U P T I O N ? YOU BE THE JUDGE.
$10,000,000,000 (yes, again billion) will go directly to teachers' unions via the states. Not necessarly to TEACHERS, because admin bureaucrats make up a goodly portion of teachers' [sic] union membership. Just to remind you, teachers-unions' bosses are major supplier of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. A good guess might be that 2% of that $10 billion will go into union coffers, which adds up to a couple hundred million. Something like 90% of teachers' union bosses' campaign contributions go to Democrats and, say, if 20% of dues goes to campaigning, Democrats would augment their campaigns by $30,000,000 (if my math is correct!) directly from the backs of our children and grandchildren in an one-time shot against Republicans. China is simply the intermediary, IF our children and grandchildren can repay China. If not, they will go to work for China (in the U.S.A.!) Actually Democrats say they'll pay for [sic] it by slashing poor people's food stamps (who needs the poor? They can't contribute much to Democrats) And from that old trusty source, evil, blood-sucking,greedy corporations (the same ones who employ people, but not enough union workers. Dems say: We don't need jobs we need union jobs so we can use their dues to get reelected.)
C O R R U P T I O N ? YOU BE THE JUDGE.
Friday, July 16, 2010
WAKE FOR AMERICA: R.I.P. THE AMERICAN DREAM
When President Barack Obama signs the Financial Takeover Bill, expected next Wednesday, July 21
It will signify the end of the greatest, most successful experiment in society ever accomplished by mankind. It has been brought to its knees, headdown on the block, awaiting beheading.
Our Founding Fathers risked their lives and fortunes to be rid of the arbitrary rule of a British monarch, King George III. 234 years later we are under the arbitrary rule of a meglomaniac, inexperienced president and his crony Congress. Our Constitution granted every American citizen the freedom to seek his or her own happiness as he or she decided for him or her self. (Get that politically-correct gender stuff?) Those same constitutional freedoms have been usurped by unelected, idealogic bureaucrats given permission by the micromanaging Congress, filled generally with lawyers unfamiliar with actually working and accomplishing in the so-formerly-called "private sector" (please look up that anachronistic term).
Those bureaucrats will be telling our citizens what to eat; what clothes to wear; toys to play with; cars to drive; how to get well; how much money to make and what products and services to offer (as of now, this is for companies only); what loans to get; how much money to keep after paying taxes on whatever monies these individuals choose; and on and on and on.
These people have as much power over the common citizenry as George III and his aristocracy. And they are just as arbitrary.
From the thin air of so-called environmentalism, President Obama has ruled that the electric-car industry will be born, with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent. The most-efficient energy source for transportation, gasoline, will be regulated away by fiat. Arbitrary? Most definitely. No one asked me if I want an electric car. (I don't.) American citizens will be forced to purchase health insurance; it is not a huge leap of faith to see the government forcing American citizens to only purchase electric cars. Evidence is that most citizens don't want to buy them. A $7,500 bribe of taxpayer money is only the start!
And doubt not: all this legislation is to achieve one end: dictating the rule of so-called-progressive politicians on American citizens. These "laws" are all fuzzy and non-specific in order to attract campaign contributions for Democrats (so-called-progressive politicians) from lobbyists trying to buy advantage and to encourage lawsuits by tort/trial lawyers who tithe a portion of their vast, uncountable riches to those self-same Democrats, incorrectly labeled "law" makers. The final nail in the coffin of American capitalism comes from the other major financier of Democrat/progressives: labor union bosses. In exchange for their power over government workers, they finance the campaigns of Democrats who set their wages, perks and retirements.
My personal wake begins today for American freedom.
The Democratic Party has successfully launched and won the takeover of the American economy and society. With it, they will preside over the dismantling of the AMERICAN (and World-wide) DREAM, may it Rest in Peace.
Super-sad American
It will signify the end of the greatest, most successful experiment in society ever accomplished by mankind. It has been brought to its knees, headdown on the block, awaiting beheading.
Our Founding Fathers risked their lives and fortunes to be rid of the arbitrary rule of a British monarch, King George III. 234 years later we are under the arbitrary rule of a meglomaniac, inexperienced president and his crony Congress. Our Constitution granted every American citizen the freedom to seek his or her own happiness as he or she decided for him or her self. (Get that politically-correct gender stuff?) Those same constitutional freedoms have been usurped by unelected, idealogic bureaucrats given permission by the micromanaging Congress, filled generally with lawyers unfamiliar with actually working and accomplishing in the so-formerly-called "private sector" (please look up that anachronistic term).
Those bureaucrats will be telling our citizens what to eat; what clothes to wear; toys to play with; cars to drive; how to get well; how much money to make and what products and services to offer (as of now, this is for companies only); what loans to get; how much money to keep after paying taxes on whatever monies these individuals choose; and on and on and on.
These people have as much power over the common citizenry as George III and his aristocracy. And they are just as arbitrary.
From the thin air of so-called environmentalism, President Obama has ruled that the electric-car industry will be born, with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent. The most-efficient energy source for transportation, gasoline, will be regulated away by fiat. Arbitrary? Most definitely. No one asked me if I want an electric car. (I don't.) American citizens will be forced to purchase health insurance; it is not a huge leap of faith to see the government forcing American citizens to only purchase electric cars. Evidence is that most citizens don't want to buy them. A $7,500 bribe of taxpayer money is only the start!
And doubt not: all this legislation is to achieve one end: dictating the rule of so-called-progressive politicians on American citizens. These "laws" are all fuzzy and non-specific in order to attract campaign contributions for Democrats (so-called-progressive politicians) from lobbyists trying to buy advantage and to encourage lawsuits by tort/trial lawyers who tithe a portion of their vast, uncountable riches to those self-same Democrats, incorrectly labeled "law" makers. The final nail in the coffin of American capitalism comes from the other major financier of Democrat/progressives: labor union bosses. In exchange for their power over government workers, they finance the campaigns of Democrats who set their wages, perks and retirements.
My personal wake begins today for American freedom.
The Democratic Party has successfully launched and won the takeover of the American economy and society. With it, they will preside over the dismantling of the AMERICAN (and World-wide) DREAM, may it Rest in Peace.
Super-sad American
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Financial Takeover Accomplished, Government settles with Goldman
On May 24th I wrote in my blog, this one, periodictablet.com, ("Goldman discusses settlement with SEC"):
"Another conspiracy theory: Obama sues Goldman, Sachs to provide the far-left media with fodder to push 'public opinion' against banks, bankers and Wall Street, no matter any reasonableness of evidence. To add substance the government is "investigating" Morgan Stanley for something or another. The story is the end game. Obama desires to grease the skids of his financial industry takeover and the governmnet actions pave the way. And the slurping, pandering media is nothing but a willing propaganda arm for him. And, gee whiz, the Senate passes his bill with four Republicans supporting it. But wait, it's not law yet. The Senate must reconcile its passed bill with that of the U. S. House of Representatives. It'll be another month, month-and-a-half to gather in all the campaign contributions for the November elections, then the 1,500-page bill will most certainly pass, with settlement of the Goldman suit following soon thereafter. And the 'investigations' of Morgan and other banks will slip unnoticed from Justice.
Justice. The Rule of Law. GONE!"
Well that was then, now here it is. On July 15, 2010, a little over my declaration of May 24's "month, month-and-a-half", and presto!
From Reuters: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:47am IST:
"REUTERS - The U.S. Senate on Thursday gave final approval to a sweeping bill to reform financial regulation, sending it to President Barack Obama to sign into law." (And it's up to 2,300 pages.)
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
(Also from Reuters (http://live.reuters.com/Event/Goldman_Sachs_settles_with_SEC), 2:14 P.M. July 15, 2010, Pacific Standard Time): "Happening Now:
Live Coverage: Goldman Sachs settles with SEC
SEC says Goldman to pay record $550 million to settle CDO-related charges"
But of course...Reuters then writes: "SEC says timing of settlement unrelated to passage of financial regulation. Full coverage of regulation here: http://www.reuters.com/ by Reuters.com at 7/15/2010 9:05:30 PM2:05 PM"
As I predicted, Obama sues Goldman to pass his financial takeover bill, the legislation passes both Houses of Congress and Obama settles with Goldman. If this isn't disgustingly corrupt, I don't know what is.
"Another conspiracy theory: Obama sues Goldman, Sachs to provide the far-left media with fodder to push 'public opinion' against banks, bankers and Wall Street, no matter any reasonableness of evidence. To add substance the government is "investigating" Morgan Stanley for something or another. The story is the end game. Obama desires to grease the skids of his financial industry takeover and the governmnet actions pave the way. And the slurping, pandering media is nothing but a willing propaganda arm for him. And, gee whiz, the Senate passes his bill with four Republicans supporting it. But wait, it's not law yet. The Senate must reconcile its passed bill with that of the U. S. House of Representatives. It'll be another month, month-and-a-half to gather in all the campaign contributions for the November elections, then the 1,500-page bill will most certainly pass, with settlement of the Goldman suit following soon thereafter. And the 'investigations' of Morgan and other banks will slip unnoticed from Justice.
Justice. The Rule of Law. GONE!"
Well that was then, now here it is. On July 15, 2010, a little over my declaration of May 24's "month, month-and-a-half", and presto!
From Reuters: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:47am IST:
"REUTERS - The U.S. Senate on Thursday gave final approval to a sweeping bill to reform financial regulation, sending it to President Barack Obama to sign into law." (And it's up to 2,300 pages.)
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
(Also from Reuters (http://live.reuters.com/Event/Goldman_Sachs_settles_with_SEC), 2:14 P.M. July 15, 2010, Pacific Standard Time): "Happening Now:
Live Coverage: Goldman Sachs settles with SEC
SEC says Goldman to pay record $550 million to settle CDO-related charges"
But of course...Reuters then writes: "SEC says timing of settlement unrelated to passage of financial regulation. Full coverage of regulation here: http://www.reuters.com/ by Reuters.com at 7/15/2010 9:05:30 PM2:05 PM"
As I predicted, Obama sues Goldman to pass his financial takeover bill, the legislation passes both Houses of Congress and Obama settles with Goldman. If this isn't disgustingly corrupt, I don't know what is.
The American people are the Business Community
This is what is wrong with our country. No, it’s not the president making profound verbal pronouncements, never backed by action nor truth, nor appointing commissions to come to conclusions (after elections) that shield politicians from decision-making. No, it’s the philosophies that are implicitly stated in this article. ["Revisiting the Regulations Affecting Business", The Wall Street Journal, Monday, July 12, 2010, page A4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704258604575360890212641082.html] “..[T]he administration faces pressure from the left not to bargain too much away [my emphasis] to corporate interests [again my emphasis]”. In this scenario “business interests” in the minds of “the left” are evil, greedy graspers who simply seem to want more of something the administration possesses and is able to bargain away. Then, more explicitly, is the following comment by the White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel pitting the “business community” which, of course in his mind wants to diminish and undercut the “health and safety of the American people” which the left, of course, again to his thinking, wants to protect: “The president has said that he is interested and open to the business community’s perspective on examining regulations [whatever that means!], but a lot of important equities [whatever that means!] need to be weighed against each other, such as the health and safety of the American people—and no one interest outweighs another.” So President Obama sees the business community as being one “interest” and the health and safety of the American people as being another and the two of them being at absolute odds with each other. What about the unique concept of the “business community” [a distinct monolithic entity in the view of the left, as opposed to millions of separate entities, each with individual needs and desires, which is reality] being part and parcel of the American people, which, after all are the owners, operators and workers of the “business community”. Only in the eyes of liberals are the two separate, each fighting the other in an inevitable conflict to the end. The reality is that liberals need this (widespread) notion in order to gain and retain power. Republicans – and conservatives – seem unable to articulate this fact. The truth is that the “business community” – AKA the American people – have created wealth for the world and the United States government by its innovation and entrepreneurship. The American people ARE the “business community” and our government, purporting to represent us, should demonstrate this (not to mention understand it) and not simply exhibit headline-gaining, but empty “broad policy reviews”. Our country is facing unprecedented competition from a world of countries which have learned from us; rather than facing them squarely in the marketplace, our leaders are throwing the game to them.
Visualize union leaders working closely together with corporate leaders to gain a competitive advantage over, say, Chinese companies, with the wealth from success flowing back to the United States and into the hands of the American people. We are a people together. If only our politicians understood this!
Visualize union leaders working closely together with corporate leaders to gain a competitive advantage over, say, Chinese companies, with the wealth from success flowing back to the United States and into the hands of the American people. We are a people together. If only our politicians understood this!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The Pet Gets the Cash. The Story of Fisker.
Obama gives $528,700,000 to one of his pets, Fisker Automotive.
(http://www.geekedabout.com/news/index.cfm?iid=1&did=2375494)
The taxpayer-backed half-billion dollars (funded no doubt by the People's Republic of China) "invested" in this Obama venture capital (aka Obama Capital) startup, will help Fisker build the ultra-luxury $89,000 Fisker Karma, which is to be built in Finland, and its next generation model, perhaps called the "Obama". This separates President Obama from Chancellor Adolph Hitler who financed the building of a "people's car" which became Volkswagon. Obama's Fisker is not made for the unwashed masses, but for the rich, obviously, at nearly $90,000 base price. It has been described as "the eco-friendly love child of a Jaguar and a Ferrari." It is built in Finland; at least the Volks was built in Hitler's country, Germany.
Biden gets his hometown's former G. M. plant reopened.
U. S.-owned company General Motors closed a plant in Vice President Joseph R. "Joe" Biden, Junior's hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, in July 2009 during its bankruptcy. Now Obama's pet "venture capital" deal, Finland-based Fisker Automotive plans to build hybrid electric cars in that very same Biden plant! Soon, good old Joe is scheduled to visit the plant, near his hometown, Wilmington to brag of this ultra-earmark..
OK, Obama gives Fisker a half of a billion dollars to reopen a plant in Biden's hometown to build a luxury car most Americans cannot afford.. So far so good. G.M. gets around $18,000,000 for the 3.2 million square feet manufacturing facility. $5.625 a square foot. (Cost to build, probably $50 a square foot.)
Fisker Plug-In Plant Will Be Union, UAW 'Essential' Says Company (http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/10/fisker-plug-in-plant-will-be-union-uaw-essential-says-company.html)
Fisker Automotive plans to welcome the United Auto Workers Union with open arms if its deal to acquire a former GM plant in Delaware goes through as planned.
While most private sector automobile companies try to avoid unions, especially in new plants, a Fisker spokesman told Green Car Advisor that Fisker is "looking to establish a mutually beneficial partnership with the UAW" as it opens its first U.S. assembly plant. The new plug-in hybrid "rich family sedan" is expected to startup production in late 2012, with a presently-anticipated price of $48,000.
The plant expects to employ as many as 2,000 at full capacity, a cost of $264,350 per job "saved or created".
(http://www.geekedabout.com/news/index.cfm?iid=1&did=2375494)
The taxpayer-backed half-billion dollars (funded no doubt by the People's Republic of China) "invested" in this Obama venture capital (aka Obama Capital) startup, will help Fisker build the ultra-luxury $89,000 Fisker Karma, which is to be built in Finland, and its next generation model, perhaps called the "Obama". This separates President Obama from Chancellor Adolph Hitler who financed the building of a "people's car" which became Volkswagon. Obama's Fisker is not made for the unwashed masses, but for the rich, obviously, at nearly $90,000 base price. It has been described as "the eco-friendly love child of a Jaguar and a Ferrari." It is built in Finland; at least the Volks was built in Hitler's country, Germany.
Biden gets his hometown's former G. M. plant reopened.
U. S.-owned company General Motors closed a plant in Vice President Joseph R. "Joe" Biden, Junior's hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, in July 2009 during its bankruptcy. Now Obama's pet "venture capital" deal, Finland-based Fisker Automotive plans to build hybrid electric cars in that very same Biden plant! Soon, good old Joe is scheduled to visit the plant, near his hometown, Wilmington to brag of this ultra-earmark..
OK, Obama gives Fisker a half of a billion dollars to reopen a plant in Biden's hometown to build a luxury car most Americans cannot afford.. So far so good. G.M. gets around $18,000,000 for the 3.2 million square feet manufacturing facility. $5.625 a square foot. (Cost to build, probably $50 a square foot.)
Fisker Plug-In Plant Will Be Union, UAW 'Essential' Says Company (http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/10/fisker-plug-in-plant-will-be-union-uaw-essential-says-company.html)
Fisker Automotive plans to welcome the United Auto Workers Union with open arms if its deal to acquire a former GM plant in Delaware goes through as planned.
While most private sector automobile companies try to avoid unions, especially in new plants, a Fisker spokesman told Green Car Advisor that Fisker is "looking to establish a mutually beneficial partnership with the UAW" as it opens its first U.S. assembly plant. The new plug-in hybrid "rich family sedan" is expected to startup production in late 2012, with a presently-anticipated price of $48,000.
The plant expects to employ as many as 2,000 at full capacity, a cost of $264,350 per job "saved or created".
Friday, June 25, 2010
Bribery Gains America Nothing
Sales of new homes plunged in May, 2010,after the Obama tax credits to buy new homes expired. My response, "Well, duh". One of myriad stupidities, Obama gave taxpayer money away so people could buy new homes. They did! Proves people can be bribed. But end the bribe and: no purchases. Off 33% from the month before to a record low -- A RECORD LOW -- seasonally-adjusted RATE of 300,000. And Mr. Obama just what did we, the United States taxpayers, get for this? Not much of anything at all except we owe China a few hundred million dollars more. And consumers buy things they don't necessarily want to buy but Obama wants them to. This is the genesis of the entire financial meltdown: government and politicians wanting something accomplished that is opposite to what the free market can do.
It is idiocy thinking as Obama and his possee of socialist-leaning lemmings do, that bribing consumers to consume can do anything for the economy. A one- or two-month shot in the arm followed by nothing. It is simply ignorant and stupid. As is our president.
It is idiocy thinking as Obama and his possee of socialist-leaning lemmings do, that bribing consumers to consume can do anything for the economy. A one- or two-month shot in the arm followed by nothing. It is simply ignorant and stupid. As is our president.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Tide Has Turned
The Tide Has Turned. It looks as though much of the Left-leaning media, many late-night Left-leaning "comedians", and, most importantly, the Left-cpntrolled Congress is turning against President Obama and his uber-radical attempt to change the American Society into some utopian-socialist absurdity. (As with Stalin and Hitler, it would, of course have had Obama in absolute charge, micro-managing every element of society.) The inexperience and far-left ideology of Barack Obama (the nation's first American Idol-- The President) which I outlined in this blog July 8, 2008, entitled "2008 Presidential Election" is becoming abundantly clear to most rationally-thinking Americans. These same Americans are turning back the tide, tossing out not only incumbant Democrats, but useless Republicans with no goal other than keeping their cushy jobs.
Perhaps with the latest fiasco with the Afghanistan War generals, it is the last straw or perhaps a last straw. We can hope for: 1) Obama's emasculation (assuming he was masculine in the first place); 2) Conservative -- real conservative -- capturing of the majority in one House, perhaps both, of the Congress and the rolling-back of the most deficit-inducing egregious Healthcare Takeover, stopping the continued left-wing political transformation/capture of the Supreme Court (which hopefully will start with rejecting Elena Kagan next week), the regulatory framework of this country and our formerly-free society; then 3) electioin of a conservative -- real conservative -- president in 2013 to finally bring this country back to the Rule of Law, respect for private property and adherence to the Constitution. And Freedom once again.
It's been far too long!
Perhaps with the latest fiasco with the Afghanistan War generals, it is the last straw or perhaps a last straw. We can hope for: 1) Obama's emasculation (assuming he was masculine in the first place); 2) Conservative -- real conservative -- capturing of the majority in one House, perhaps both, of the Congress and the rolling-back of the most deficit-inducing egregious Healthcare Takeover, stopping the continued left-wing political transformation/capture of the Supreme Court (which hopefully will start with rejecting Elena Kagan next week), the regulatory framework of this country and our formerly-free society; then 3) electioin of a conservative -- real conservative -- president in 2013 to finally bring this country back to the Rule of Law, respect for private property and adherence to the Constitution. And Freedom once again.
It's been far too long!
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
"Arbitrary and Capricious"
Federal Judge Martin Feldman inadvertently summed up the the entire Obama Administration in his decision overturning the president's "arbitrary and capricious" six-month moratorium on deep-water oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Painting his sharp reprimand with detail he added, that even presidents couldn't impose an unjustified "edict"'; that the administration couldn't even define "deep water"; that it didn't mention any "irreparable harm" to justify such a sweeping moritorium; that it offered "no evidence" of a balance of environmental concerns with the immense scope of the moratorium's "irreparable harm" to jobs. And finally, that the administration's claim that its so-called "safety report" was "peer reviewed" was a lie - "factually incorrect" plus it "abuses reason, common sense and the text at issue". That there was no "probity" (defined as "absolute moral correctness" and "a very moral and honest way of behaving") in its decision.
In summary the Obama Administration was:
arbitrary and capricious
incoherent
one-sidedly prejudiced
immoral
lying.
Now let's glide over the headlines and body of today's Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, June 23, 2010):
"Business Group Slams 'Hostile' Policies on Jobs" of the Obama Adminsitration. (page A4)
Director of Obama's Office of Management and Budget Office decides to resign after overseeing a 2009 Obama Budget deficit of $1,400,000,000,000 ($1.4 trillion) or 10% of U. S. GDP a number not seen since World War II. Projections are for it to skyrocket to $11,000,000,000,000 ($11 trillion)over the next ten years. I'd quit, too. Peter Orszat helped ram through the "stimulus" (see next) and the healthcare industry takeover, which is looking like an additional major deficit producer. (page A4)
"States Face New Pinch as [ineffective] Stimulus Ebbs". Of the $787,000,000,000 so-called "stimulus", $150,000,000,000 went to states to prevent union-member layoffs and provide temporary funding for federal government-mandated healthcare (primarily Medicaid) which runs out at the end of the year and the rest went for tax relief, grants (many to non-profits), contracts, and awards (none of which demonstrably created any jobs). Scott Pattison, executive officer of the National Association of State Budget Officers, said "Stimulus is going to run out and there isn't sufficient economic growth that's going to come in and make up for the loss of those funds". The "stimulus" is an abject failure. But state and local government (union) jobs have been protected, losing only 230,000 jobs against 8,000,000 gone in the private sector. States want $24,000,000,000 more to balance their budgets on the backs of U. S. citizens at large.
"Obama Tangles With Insurance Executives Over Rates" (page A4). President Obama warned health insurance executives not to raise rates "unreasonably" (an arbitrary and un-definable word). Obama's new hugely-costly regulations which cover people without insurance, prohibit denial of care (which is highly-regulated by states already), stop lifetime caps and limit annual caps, force adults up to age 28 to be covered on their parents' plans vastly increase insurance companies' costs. Finally it fixes profits ("price fixing") of health insurance companies at 15% to 20% of premiums (depending on type of insurance, which figure includes administrative costs), but, of course, the Health and Human Services Secretary can by law modify such regulations on a case-by-case arbitrariness (undermining, of course, the Rule of Law completely).
But the greatest set of articles concern the upcoming G-20 (Group of worldwide twenty major industrial and developing countries) meeting. "France's Lagarde Forecasts Austerity", "U. K. Unveils Severe 'Unavoidable Budget'", "Japan Lays Groundwork for Cutting Massive Public Debt" and "Bank Tax Gains Backers Before G-20" (all page A11), "Russia's Economic Czar Tackles Deficit, Bureaucracy" (page A13). All these articles highlight the unavoidable need for countries to slash deficits. Except America. Obama tells other countries to slash and burn deficits AND to force their conumers to save less and spend more on imports (hopefully from America) WHILE the U. S. needs to continue its deficits and sell more of its imports. DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO.
As for the slashing and burning our deficit, Mr. Obama slyly slides it under the table with a "deficit commission" to report AFTER the upcoming mid-term elections while continuing to spend like a cocaine-addled maniac. "White House Backs Electric-Car Aid" (page B3). Yes, Mr. President, toss out another $8,000,000,000 ($8 billion) to spend on his favorate subsidies to build electric plug facilities, car-batteries. While the most efficient, low-cost, reliable transportation source, the internal-compustion engine, recipient of over a century of innovation and investment is disregarded along with other possibilities such as fuel cells. This is in addition to $25,000,000,000 ($25 billion) given to help auto makers retool for electrics; $2,400,000,000 ($2.4 billion) for battery development and an unspecified number of billions of dollars for paying consumers $7,500 each to buy the unwanted vehicles. (The same amount it a paid consumers a year ago to destroy old gas-powered cars.)
But is there a sliver of hope? Mr. Obama's $24,000,000,000 ($24 billion) of desired further "aid" to states for another six months of unemployment payments was stripped out of a House bill and may be by Senators. Hmmmm. But it's only a sliver by Congresspeople hungrily doing anything the can -- even slow spending increases -- to keep their cushy jobs.
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IS ABSOLUTELY OPPOSITE TO THE RULE OF LAW, where citizens can rely on laws passed by legislatures, not the offhanded arbitrary decisions by monarch-wannabes like Barack Obama and his far-left posse to buy votes, reward supporters, subsidize things they want.
Thank you judge.
In summary the Obama Administration was:
arbitrary and capricious
incoherent
one-sidedly prejudiced
immoral
lying.
Now let's glide over the headlines and body of today's Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, June 23, 2010):
"Business Group Slams 'Hostile' Policies on Jobs" of the Obama Adminsitration. (page A4)
Director of Obama's Office of Management and Budget Office decides to resign after overseeing a 2009 Obama Budget deficit of $1,400,000,000,000 ($1.4 trillion) or 10% of U. S. GDP a number not seen since World War II. Projections are for it to skyrocket to $11,000,000,000,000 ($11 trillion)over the next ten years. I'd quit, too. Peter Orszat helped ram through the "stimulus" (see next) and the healthcare industry takeover, which is looking like an additional major deficit producer. (page A4)
"States Face New Pinch as [ineffective] Stimulus Ebbs". Of the $787,000,000,000 so-called "stimulus", $150,000,000,000 went to states to prevent union-member layoffs and provide temporary funding for federal government-mandated healthcare (primarily Medicaid) which runs out at the end of the year and the rest went for tax relief, grants (many to non-profits), contracts, and awards (none of which demonstrably created any jobs). Scott Pattison, executive officer of the National Association of State Budget Officers, said "Stimulus is going to run out and there isn't sufficient economic growth that's going to come in and make up for the loss of those funds". The "stimulus" is an abject failure. But state and local government (union) jobs have been protected, losing only 230,000 jobs against 8,000,000 gone in the private sector. States want $24,000,000,000 more to balance their budgets on the backs of U. S. citizens at large.
"Obama Tangles With Insurance Executives Over Rates" (page A4). President Obama warned health insurance executives not to raise rates "unreasonably" (an arbitrary and un-definable word). Obama's new hugely-costly regulations which cover people without insurance, prohibit denial of care (which is highly-regulated by states already), stop lifetime caps and limit annual caps, force adults up to age 28 to be covered on their parents' plans vastly increase insurance companies' costs. Finally it fixes profits ("price fixing") of health insurance companies at 15% to 20% of premiums (depending on type of insurance, which figure includes administrative costs), but, of course, the Health and Human Services Secretary can by law modify such regulations on a case-by-case arbitrariness (undermining, of course, the Rule of Law completely).
But the greatest set of articles concern the upcoming G-20 (Group of worldwide twenty major industrial and developing countries) meeting. "France's Lagarde Forecasts Austerity", "U. K. Unveils Severe 'Unavoidable Budget'", "Japan Lays Groundwork for Cutting Massive Public Debt" and "Bank Tax Gains Backers Before G-20" (all page A11), "Russia's Economic Czar Tackles Deficit, Bureaucracy" (page A13). All these articles highlight the unavoidable need for countries to slash deficits. Except America. Obama tells other countries to slash and burn deficits AND to force their conumers to save less and spend more on imports (hopefully from America) WHILE the U. S. needs to continue its deficits and sell more of its imports. DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO.
As for the slashing and burning our deficit, Mr. Obama slyly slides it under the table with a "deficit commission" to report AFTER the upcoming mid-term elections while continuing to spend like a cocaine-addled maniac. "White House Backs Electric-Car Aid" (page B3). Yes, Mr. President, toss out another $8,000,000,000 ($8 billion) to spend on his favorate subsidies to build electric plug facilities, car-batteries. While the most efficient, low-cost, reliable transportation source, the internal-compustion engine, recipient of over a century of innovation and investment is disregarded along with other possibilities such as fuel cells. This is in addition to $25,000,000,000 ($25 billion) given to help auto makers retool for electrics; $2,400,000,000 ($2.4 billion) for battery development and an unspecified number of billions of dollars for paying consumers $7,500 each to buy the unwanted vehicles. (The same amount it a paid consumers a year ago to destroy old gas-powered cars.)
But is there a sliver of hope? Mr. Obama's $24,000,000,000 ($24 billion) of desired further "aid" to states for another six months of unemployment payments was stripped out of a House bill and may be by Senators. Hmmmm. But it's only a sliver by Congresspeople hungrily doing anything the can -- even slow spending increases -- to keep their cushy jobs.
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IS ABSOLUTELY OPPOSITE TO THE RULE OF LAW, where citizens can rely on laws passed by legislatures, not the offhanded arbitrary decisions by monarch-wannabes like Barack Obama and his far-left posse to buy votes, reward supporters, subsidize things they want.
Thank you judge.
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Second Civil War
The Left will never give up. They are committed to winning at all costs to the country. The mere mention that they should or might is wrong...They are in it to the end...the end of America. The lackadaisacal attitude of some of those on the Right is alarming. Bush allowed the Left to make great strides, with the consent of the Republicans in Congress. Where did this get us? Creeping socialism turned into a gallop. Obama and the Democratic Congress have ripped up the Constitution and completely disregard the Rule of Law -- a basic foundation of our society. Bribery, extortion, propagandistic lies are all the basic foundatiuon of the Left. Every one of us rational, country-loving citizens must realize that we are in a Second Civil War -- a fight to the end. If they win -- and have no doubt they are -- it is the end, the end of the country we love.
For proof just check out the chaos of Katrina being replicated by the chaos of the BP oil spill. While not admitting it, the Federal Government has micromanaged with regulations every bit of oil exploration, drilling and production. The direct cause of the Spill is in the government not allowing easy drilling in easy places. Prohibitions by environmental advocates, promoted by those to whom the money and votes of the environmentalists go -- Democrats aided and abetted by a lackadaisical , leaderless Republican Party (caring as with Democrats more about their keeping their cushy jobs than what's best for the country) are at fault.
But faults aside, the ineptitude and chaos of Katrina and the Spill is...bureaucracy. Vast numbers of non-motivated, "tenured" government employees, advisors and consultants without leaders. That brings the anarchistic chaos which is the description for most governments and even many private-sector bureaucracies. Our government is unmanageable. Especially with a clueless, inexperienced president. But the oligarchy of the Left keeps adding voters (government employees, beneficiaries of government largesse, with tax money from a relative few and the insane Social Justice socialists.)
If the interest rates of U. S. gtovernment debt increases anywhere close to where Jimmy Carter took them, this country is bankrupt. For example 8% of the $15,000,000,000,000 declared U. S. Government debt is $1,200,000,000,000 each year, around 1/3 of all federal income tax reciepts. One-Third.
The U. S. Economy is managed by a president who desperately hates business, thinking it the root of all evil. He is systematically destroying free-enterprise business in America. Destroying with tax increases, tight money, crippling regulations, frightening investigations and with BP, clear extortion of $20,000,000,000 to be given to his "friends" on the Left to "manage" and dole out to those they arbitrarily consider "needy". Oversight? Ha! Ha! Ha! The joke's on us for allowing them to dictate and BP to cave in. And, BP they won and like all extortionists, they'll be back, and back, and back until they have drained you and thrown you away. And yes, some workers in the Gulf will get some, but I'll bet, windmill, solar "initiatives" -- invironmetnalist-friendly subsidies -- will get much.
FIGHT. DONATE. DISSENT. VOTE. Don't give a quarter (as they used to say). WIN THE SECOND CIVIL WAR OR IT WILL BE THE END OF AMERICA.
For proof just check out the chaos of Katrina being replicated by the chaos of the BP oil spill. While not admitting it, the Federal Government has micromanaged with regulations every bit of oil exploration, drilling and production. The direct cause of the Spill is in the government not allowing easy drilling in easy places. Prohibitions by environmental advocates, promoted by those to whom the money and votes of the environmentalists go -- Democrats aided and abetted by a lackadaisical , leaderless Republican Party (caring as with Democrats more about their keeping their cushy jobs than what's best for the country) are at fault.
But faults aside, the ineptitude and chaos of Katrina and the Spill is...bureaucracy. Vast numbers of non-motivated, "tenured" government employees, advisors and consultants without leaders. That brings the anarchistic chaos which is the description for most governments and even many private-sector bureaucracies. Our government is unmanageable. Especially with a clueless, inexperienced president. But the oligarchy of the Left keeps adding voters (government employees, beneficiaries of government largesse, with tax money from a relative few and the insane Social Justice socialists.)
If the interest rates of U. S. gtovernment debt increases anywhere close to where Jimmy Carter took them, this country is bankrupt. For example 8% of the $15,000,000,000,000 declared U. S. Government debt is $1,200,000,000,000 each year, around 1/3 of all federal income tax reciepts. One-Third.
The U. S. Economy is managed by a president who desperately hates business, thinking it the root of all evil. He is systematically destroying free-enterprise business in America. Destroying with tax increases, tight money, crippling regulations, frightening investigations and with BP, clear extortion of $20,000,000,000 to be given to his "friends" on the Left to "manage" and dole out to those they arbitrarily consider "needy". Oversight? Ha! Ha! Ha! The joke's on us for allowing them to dictate and BP to cave in. And, BP they won and like all extortionists, they'll be back, and back, and back until they have drained you and thrown you away. And yes, some workers in the Gulf will get some, but I'll bet, windmill, solar "initiatives" -- invironmetnalist-friendly subsidies -- will get much.
FIGHT. DONATE. DISSENT. VOTE. Don't give a quarter (as they used to say). WIN THE SECOND CIVIL WAR OR IT WILL BE THE END OF AMERICA.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Published Letter by your humble correspondant
LETTERS [Published in The Wall Street Journal] JUNE 1, 2010 [page A18]
The Bond Market Vigilantes Could Do Us Some Good Article
Comments [The article follows]
Nowhere in Mr. Blinder's article does he mention the concept of growth. His only methods of reining in cripplingly high interest rates are: spend more, export more (by currency devaluation) or spend less. All these together will not solve the problem. As is well known, but for political reasons not exercised in practice, you can't cut your way to prosperity. So what's left? What is the answer? Growth. Only by getting an economy bigger can it pay down debt, create jobs and finance social justice. A simple concept, but one resisted by liberals who don't at the core believe in the only path to that growth: successful businesses. Successful, growing businesses are the only way for an economy to grow. That growth can only come from activities anathema to liberals: lower taxes, reduce regulations, and downsize government. Add that to your arsenal, Mr. Blinder.
Theodore M. Wight
Seattle
[The article]: Thursday, May 20, [The Wall Street Journal]
By ALAN S. BLINDER
Remember the bond market vigilantes, that frightening band of financial marauders who once roamed the earth like a fearsome herd of Tyrannosaurus rex? They were so scary that in February 1993, as President Bill Clinton struggled to reduce the federal budget deficit, James Carville quipped that he wanted to be reincarnated as the bond market so he could intimidate everybody.
Well, they're baaack! Not in the United States, though. Here, the Treasury Department continues to borrow brobdingnagian sums of money at extremely low interest rates—about 3.5% for 10-year Treasurys and under 1% for two-years lately—even though everybody knows that the federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path toward the stratosphere. (Could it be that not everybody knows?)
But the bond market vigilantes have landed in force in Europe. Their beachhead, of course, is Greece, which all but invited them in with—how shall we put it?—a certain lack of fiscal probity. The ensuing roller-coaster ride of ups and downs that have roiled stock, bond and currency markets around the world is apparently not over. As you read this, the markets may be either sinking or soaring on the latest news out of Europe.
Greece recently signed up for an International Monetary Fund program—the sort of treatment once reserved for supplicant developing countries. It also now has the European Central Bank (ECB) buying its bonds, access to the European Union's new €60 billion bailout fund, and potential access to bond guarantees via a €440 billion "special purpose vehicle" that euro-zone countries promise to cobble together if necessary. But all this has only partly calmed the Aegean waters.
Here's the problem: Bond market vigilantes can be a force for good or ill, often both at the same time. The bond market is certainly powerful, as Mr. Carville saw—but it's not always wise and it's rarely subtle. Once the vigilantes get riled up about, say, budget deficits, they can turn into an electronic mob that circles the globe faster than Hermes. Unfortunately, the basic economic message about deficit spending today requires some subtlety: Most countries need fiscal stimulus today but a large dose of deficit reduction in the long run.
To fight the 2008-2009 recession, many countries deliberately increased their spending and/or reduced taxes, thereby swelling their budget deficits. That was the right thing to do under the circumstances, because private spending was drying up and unemployment was on the rise. (Ask the oracle: John Maynard Keynes.) Or, more correctly, it was the right thing to do as long as the higher spending and lower taxes were temporary—as was typically, but not always, the case.
The trick was to promulgate major short-run fiscal stimulus programs without spooking investors about the long-run fiscal outlook. And it worked—for a while. But now the bond market vigilantes have been awakened and are spoiling for a fight. I worry that they may force many European (and other) countries into premature fiscal contractions.
Sadly, it is already too late for Greece, where sizable tax hikes and expenditure cuts are coming to a land where gross domestic product has already declined for five consecutive quarters. It is hard to imagine how Greece can avoid a nasty slump. If we look for historical examples of countries that have lived through major fiscal retrenchments without recessions, we find three principal ways out. But two of these options—easing monetary policy and depreciating the currency to boost exports—are unavailable to euro-using Greece.
The third way is to ignite a bond market rally by convincing traders that you've got religion on fiscal responsibility—which is what happened here during the Clinton years. (Full disclosure: I was part of President Clinton's original economic team.) Could the Greeks have accomplished that by themselves? It looked unlikely without intervention from Mount Olympus, which is why the EU rode to the rescue.
The more important question now is whether the rest of Europe is under a similar threat. Greece accounts for less than 2% of European GDP, so a sharp recession there—if it's only there—should have only minor demand spillovers to other countries. But with most of the other 98% of Europe growing very slowly, large fiscal contractions are not exactly what the macroeconomic doctor ordered. (Ask the oracles: Herbert Hoover or former Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, the "Herbert Hoover of Japan.") The ECB seems unlikely to help by cutting interest rates further. But the value of the euro has fallen, which should give exports a boost.
From a long-run perspective, the bond market vigilantes have it right. Greece, Europe, the U.S. and other countries must take serious steps to get their budget deficits under better control. And the long-run budget problems of many nations are too large to be solved exclusively on either the tax side or the expenditure side.
The U.S. is a case in point. Under continuation of current policies, our budget deficit and national debt would soar to impossible heights. (Ask the oracle: the Congressional Budget Office.) The amount of deficit reduction needed to stop this incipient explosion is so large that no serious person should believe we can do it without both spending cuts and higher taxes.
But not yet, please. And therein lies the difficult-but-essential subtlety.
St. Augustine urged the Lord to make him chaste, but not yet. Now budget and finance ministers around the world, including our own Peter Orszag and Tim Geithner, must make an analogous plea to the bond market vigilantes—and back up their words with deeds. The problem is that the vigilantes are an impatient lot and Greece has set their clocks ticking faster.
What needs to be done varies enormously by country. Here in the U.S. Social Security reform, once considered the third rail of American politics, is now the low-hanging fruit of deficit reduction. Fixing Social Security's finances is easy, technically. And the timing is perfect because promising deficit reduction now but delivering it later is exactly the right thing to do. After all, no one wants to raise payroll taxes now or reduce retirement benefits without giving people many years of advance notice.
When the Greenspan Commission "fixed" Social Security's finances (for a while) in 1983, it delayed much of the pain for decades. Its proposals not only passed Congress in a flash but have raised barely a whimper of objection since.
Pulling off something like that today might be a good way for the U.S. to steer a middle course between the Scylla of the bond market's wrath and the Charybdis of premature belt tightening that damages the recovery. Hey, Odysseus managed it.
Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
_____________________________
Further comment. It is clear that the Democratic Deficit will never ebb. The Party cannot get elected without the financial support of one of the main causes of the deficit(s): labor unions. They buy the Democrats' elections in exhange for cushy jobs, with high pay, early retirement, and guaranteed work. The Democratic Congress will never step out of its fat jobs, the rest of the country who get badly hurt by the selfishness of the union bosses need to elect Republicans, Tea Partiers, Libertarians. Anything but Democrats looking out for their own interests ahead of those of the American Citizen. We need to weed out all -- all politicians, bureaucrats and "activists" who are against the success and growth of businesses.
Simple.
The Bond Market Vigilantes Could Do Us Some Good Article
Comments [The article follows]
Nowhere in Mr. Blinder's article does he mention the concept of growth. His only methods of reining in cripplingly high interest rates are: spend more, export more (by currency devaluation) or spend less. All these together will not solve the problem. As is well known, but for political reasons not exercised in practice, you can't cut your way to prosperity. So what's left? What is the answer? Growth. Only by getting an economy bigger can it pay down debt, create jobs and finance social justice. A simple concept, but one resisted by liberals who don't at the core believe in the only path to that growth: successful businesses. Successful, growing businesses are the only way for an economy to grow. That growth can only come from activities anathema to liberals: lower taxes, reduce regulations, and downsize government. Add that to your arsenal, Mr. Blinder.
Theodore M. Wight
Seattle
[The article]: Thursday, May 20, [The Wall Street Journal]
By ALAN S. BLINDER
Remember the bond market vigilantes, that frightening band of financial marauders who once roamed the earth like a fearsome herd of Tyrannosaurus rex? They were so scary that in February 1993, as President Bill Clinton struggled to reduce the federal budget deficit, James Carville quipped that he wanted to be reincarnated as the bond market so he could intimidate everybody.
Well, they're baaack! Not in the United States, though. Here, the Treasury Department continues to borrow brobdingnagian sums of money at extremely low interest rates—about 3.5% for 10-year Treasurys and under 1% for two-years lately—even though everybody knows that the federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path toward the stratosphere. (Could it be that not everybody knows?)
But the bond market vigilantes have landed in force in Europe. Their beachhead, of course, is Greece, which all but invited them in with—how shall we put it?—a certain lack of fiscal probity. The ensuing roller-coaster ride of ups and downs that have roiled stock, bond and currency markets around the world is apparently not over. As you read this, the markets may be either sinking or soaring on the latest news out of Europe.
Greece recently signed up for an International Monetary Fund program—the sort of treatment once reserved for supplicant developing countries. It also now has the European Central Bank (ECB) buying its bonds, access to the European Union's new €60 billion bailout fund, and potential access to bond guarantees via a €440 billion "special purpose vehicle" that euro-zone countries promise to cobble together if necessary. But all this has only partly calmed the Aegean waters.
Here's the problem: Bond market vigilantes can be a force for good or ill, often both at the same time. The bond market is certainly powerful, as Mr. Carville saw—but it's not always wise and it's rarely subtle. Once the vigilantes get riled up about, say, budget deficits, they can turn into an electronic mob that circles the globe faster than Hermes. Unfortunately, the basic economic message about deficit spending today requires some subtlety: Most countries need fiscal stimulus today but a large dose of deficit reduction in the long run.
To fight the 2008-2009 recession, many countries deliberately increased their spending and/or reduced taxes, thereby swelling their budget deficits. That was the right thing to do under the circumstances, because private spending was drying up and unemployment was on the rise. (Ask the oracle: John Maynard Keynes.) Or, more correctly, it was the right thing to do as long as the higher spending and lower taxes were temporary—as was typically, but not always, the case.
The trick was to promulgate major short-run fiscal stimulus programs without spooking investors about the long-run fiscal outlook. And it worked—for a while. But now the bond market vigilantes have been awakened and are spoiling for a fight. I worry that they may force many European (and other) countries into premature fiscal contractions.
Sadly, it is already too late for Greece, where sizable tax hikes and expenditure cuts are coming to a land where gross domestic product has already declined for five consecutive quarters. It is hard to imagine how Greece can avoid a nasty slump. If we look for historical examples of countries that have lived through major fiscal retrenchments without recessions, we find three principal ways out. But two of these options—easing monetary policy and depreciating the currency to boost exports—are unavailable to euro-using Greece.
The third way is to ignite a bond market rally by convincing traders that you've got religion on fiscal responsibility—which is what happened here during the Clinton years. (Full disclosure: I was part of President Clinton's original economic team.) Could the Greeks have accomplished that by themselves? It looked unlikely without intervention from Mount Olympus, which is why the EU rode to the rescue.
The more important question now is whether the rest of Europe is under a similar threat. Greece accounts for less than 2% of European GDP, so a sharp recession there—if it's only there—should have only minor demand spillovers to other countries. But with most of the other 98% of Europe growing very slowly, large fiscal contractions are not exactly what the macroeconomic doctor ordered. (Ask the oracles: Herbert Hoover or former Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, the "Herbert Hoover of Japan.") The ECB seems unlikely to help by cutting interest rates further. But the value of the euro has fallen, which should give exports a boost.
From a long-run perspective, the bond market vigilantes have it right. Greece, Europe, the U.S. and other countries must take serious steps to get their budget deficits under better control. And the long-run budget problems of many nations are too large to be solved exclusively on either the tax side or the expenditure side.
The U.S. is a case in point. Under continuation of current policies, our budget deficit and national debt would soar to impossible heights. (Ask the oracle: the Congressional Budget Office.) The amount of deficit reduction needed to stop this incipient explosion is so large that no serious person should believe we can do it without both spending cuts and higher taxes.
But not yet, please. And therein lies the difficult-but-essential subtlety.
St. Augustine urged the Lord to make him chaste, but not yet. Now budget and finance ministers around the world, including our own Peter Orszag and Tim Geithner, must make an analogous plea to the bond market vigilantes—and back up their words with deeds. The problem is that the vigilantes are an impatient lot and Greece has set their clocks ticking faster.
What needs to be done varies enormously by country. Here in the U.S. Social Security reform, once considered the third rail of American politics, is now the low-hanging fruit of deficit reduction. Fixing Social Security's finances is easy, technically. And the timing is perfect because promising deficit reduction now but delivering it later is exactly the right thing to do. After all, no one wants to raise payroll taxes now or reduce retirement benefits without giving people many years of advance notice.
When the Greenspan Commission "fixed" Social Security's finances (for a while) in 1983, it delayed much of the pain for decades. Its proposals not only passed Congress in a flash but have raised barely a whimper of objection since.
Pulling off something like that today might be a good way for the U.S. to steer a middle course between the Scylla of the bond market's wrath and the Charybdis of premature belt tightening that damages the recovery. Hey, Odysseus managed it.
Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
_____________________________
Further comment. It is clear that the Democratic Deficit will never ebb. The Party cannot get elected without the financial support of one of the main causes of the deficit(s): labor unions. They buy the Democrats' elections in exhange for cushy jobs, with high pay, early retirement, and guaranteed work. The Democratic Congress will never step out of its fat jobs, the rest of the country who get badly hurt by the selfishness of the union bosses need to elect Republicans, Tea Partiers, Libertarians. Anything but Democrats looking out for their own interests ahead of those of the American Citizen. We need to weed out all -- all politicians, bureaucrats and "activists" who are against the success and growth of businesses.
Simple.
Friday, May 28, 2010
OBAMA'S GOOGLE GOVERNMENT
"Obama Only Dem Candidate To Pledge 'Google Government'" (First Posted to the Huffington Post, 08-26-07 11:34 AM)
While the obviously anti-business Obama Administration launches investigations, inquiries and lawsuits against virtually every big business that breathes, its friends can roll.
The Obama Federal Trade Commission allowed Google to purchase AdMob, a major player in mobile display ad technology, for $750 million. Its decision was completely unexpected, to say the least. Even The Wall Street Journal had written that both Google and AdMob expected the OFTC to block the deal over antitrust concerns. Google completed the takeover before you could say "crony". I guess there are no "concerns" when you're in bed with the government.
It's nice to know that with Obama it's not what you do, it's clearly who you know, who you back and to whom you donate.
Can it be termed "Corrupt Capitalism"? "Crony" seems too benign.
While the obviously anti-business Obama Administration launches investigations, inquiries and lawsuits against virtually every big business that breathes, its friends can roll.
The Obama Federal Trade Commission allowed Google to purchase AdMob, a major player in mobile display ad technology, for $750 million. Its decision was completely unexpected, to say the least. Even The Wall Street Journal had written that both Google and AdMob expected the OFTC to block the deal over antitrust concerns. Google completed the takeover before you could say "crony". I guess there are no "concerns" when you're in bed with the government.
It's nice to know that with Obama it's not what you do, it's clearly who you know, who you back and to whom you donate.
Can it be termed "Corrupt Capitalism"? "Crony" seems too benign.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
OUTRAGE. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
ACTION ALERT! The civil rights of African-American and Hispanics children are being violated. The Constitution clearly mandates that all people in the United States of America must know how to swim. The outrage is that 5 – 14-year-old African-Americans drown at 3.1 times that of whites. And five times as likely to drown in pools. The reason is that 70% of African-American and 58% of Hispanic children cannot swim. Their civil rights are being violated. Trial lawyers must sue for the rights of black and Hispanic kids. Pools must be built and lessons given in every jurisdiction lacking them (and not only will there be less drowning but the lawyers can make a few hundred million dollars). This outrage must be stopped. Thank you, The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, May 27, 2010, page D3 "Report Finds a Gap Persists in Swimming) and USA Swimming for bringing this crisis to our attention.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Rule of Obama...oops I mean Law
The Rule of Obama/Law
One of the basic tenets of American society has been the predictable laws passed by Congress and in many cases upheld or not by the Supreme Court ideally based upon the specific words of the U. S. Constitution. The liberal left, Obama and the Democrats including Elena Kagan eschew the Constitution as being outdated and written by rich, successful white men and thus irrelevant to the United States of today. They fervently believe that the law ought to be gusting in the wind of liberal whim. Obama/Law. The past doesn't matter, it's what they want TODAY. Immediate gratification guides Obama's Supremes. Nothing is predictable. Look at taxes, laws, regulations, all subject to change depending on whim and winning elections. How can anyone, especially a business, plan and budget for something that not only is unknown, but unpredictable? Blowing in the wind. Then businesses can only compete by buying politicians to get them to lean the way the businesses want or need. Yes, America, immediate gratification ala the purposeful Obama. Spend now for reelection. Spend now to gratify labor unions, trial lawyers, minorities, the gay affinity group, spend, spend, spend. Gratification. Get. Take. Expect. Depend. Everything but responsibility, earning, hard work, giving back. Deficits as far ahead as the eye can see. Until China won't loan us money. Then the rule of law matters not. Anarchy. Then where will the the peace-loving, anti-gun Democrats going to be?
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Think about it.
But here's something new from the man charged with upholding the Rule of Law in the United States of America: "But Mr. Holder acknowledged to the committee that he hasn't read the law [Arizona's new "immigration" law], and his criticisms were based on what he's seen on television or read in the newspapers about the law.
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people who are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder said.
Last weekend, Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
[http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HolderBalksatBlamingRadicalIslamforTerror/2010/05/14/id/359041?s=al&promo_code=9E30-1]
If this isn't grounds for firing the man, I do not know what is. It further reinforces my contention that the Obama administration does not care for nor follow the Constitution of the United States of America, but that the "law" is whatever 1) gets votes, 2) is his whim of the day or 3) isn't from a Republican.
One of the basic tenets of American society has been the predictable laws passed by Congress and in many cases upheld or not by the Supreme Court ideally based upon the specific words of the U. S. Constitution. The liberal left, Obama and the Democrats including Elena Kagan eschew the Constitution as being outdated and written by rich, successful white men and thus irrelevant to the United States of today. They fervently believe that the law ought to be gusting in the wind of liberal whim. Obama/Law. The past doesn't matter, it's what they want TODAY. Immediate gratification guides Obama's Supremes. Nothing is predictable. Look at taxes, laws, regulations, all subject to change depending on whim and winning elections. How can anyone, especially a business, plan and budget for something that not only is unknown, but unpredictable? Blowing in the wind. Then businesses can only compete by buying politicians to get them to lean the way the businesses want or need. Yes, America, immediate gratification ala the purposeful Obama. Spend now for reelection. Spend now to gratify labor unions, trial lawyers, minorities, the gay affinity group, spend, spend, spend. Gratification. Get. Take. Expect. Depend. Everything but responsibility, earning, hard work, giving back. Deficits as far ahead as the eye can see. Until China won't loan us money. Then the rule of law matters not. Anarchy. Then where will the the peace-loving, anti-gun Democrats going to be?
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Think about it.
But here's something new from the man charged with upholding the Rule of Law in the United States of America: "But Mr. Holder acknowledged to the committee that he hasn't read the law [Arizona's new "immigration" law], and his criticisms were based on what he's seen on television or read in the newspapers about the law.
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people who are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder said.
Last weekend, Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
[http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HolderBalksatBlamingRadicalIslamforTerror/2010/05/14/id/359041?s=al&promo_code=9E30-1]
If this isn't grounds for firing the man, I do not know what is. It further reinforces my contention that the Obama administration does not care for nor follow the Constitution of the United States of America, but that the "law" is whatever 1) gets votes, 2) is his whim of the day or 3) isn't from a Republican.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Ned Ludd Returns II
But an EXTRA! update. May 12, 2010, embarrassing President Obama who is trying every trick in the book to hobble bitter competitor and largest car company in the World, Toyota Motor Corp., announced profitability for its fourth fiscal quarter. Growing nearly 50% year-to-year, profits reached $3,320,000,000.
Speaking of GM, its CEO is still thrashing around, changing the guard once again, bringing in a guy from Hyundai. Hyundai? 49 year-old Joel Ewanick did a clever campaign allowing customers to return Hyundai cars if they lost their jobs. In a brilliant strategic move GM CEO Whitacre named the guy U. S. marketing VP. Hyundai? The prior VP, a woman named Susan Docherty, didn't perform fast enough, being in the position since December (Ewanick is #4 marketing chief in a year at GM). Mr. Ewanick must be known for his loyalty, coming to GM from Nissan Motor Co., where he jumped in promotion to chief marketing officer in March, yes, that's a couple months ago. Mr. Whitacre is desperate. and seems as clueless and inexperienced as his boss, President Barack Obama.
In another strategic move for GM, U. S. regulators hit Toyota again, this time looking deeply and publically into whether Toyota was too slow in reporting steering issues in 2004 and 2005. That must be getting to the bottom of the barrell, and comes from 21 complaints of 978,000 cars (.002%). Oh, yes, the complaints predictably came from Democratic Party financiers, trial lawyers who are piling on for some $500,000,000 in potential legal fees from class action lawsuits against Toyota
And speaking of Democratic Party financiers, the United Auto Union bosses who loudly and publically gave "wage concessions" to GM have in fact not suffered any such concessions. Seems the new workers who were to be hired at cut-rate wages of $25.65 an hour haven't been hired because some 5,000 old workers are sitting around making 70% $60 an hour waiting to be hired first -- no not working but sucking our taxpayers' money. Let's see, either union bosses are smarter than our U. S. government or our U. S. government knew and lied to us to get its disgusting $65,000,000,000 snatch of U. S. money to give GM to directly benefit the aforesaid unions.
The left-leaning Consumer Reports Magazine (April 14, 2010) issued a "don't buy" recommendation, its first for ten years, on the Lexus GX 460, because its rear slides out at excessive speed and aggressive maneuvering and that just might cause a rollover. Why not just don't drive at excessive speed? Unanswered question because of course the driver would never be at fault, only the for-profit, anti-union manufacturer.
Extra! Extra! Obama-managed General Motors Co. loses only $4,300,000,000 since bankruptcy. (One article mentions that GM is paying union workers not to work. SO, wht's new? And said union is suing said GM for another $450,000,000 for healthcare. That's gratitude for you.)
But more importantly to the Lefdt-wing, GM added a professor of psychology to its board. Oh, yes she was also a Los Angeles City Commissioner (a Democrat I presume). GM proudly stated that the good prof is a Hispanic and would bring diversity to its board, so much more important than things like experience and knowledge to a company that doesn't have to perform, only keep its union workers at any cost to the taxpayers.
This post has nothing to do with the Luddites of Congress, as an earlier post did, but is about the continuing unfair advantage General Motors has over Toyota Motor Corp. Remember, General Motors is owned by the most powerful country in the world, the United States of America. Toyota became the largest automobile in the world by offering consumers products they wanted. Quality was prominant in Toyota's strategy. GM, not so much and it entered bankruptcy in 2009. After being attacked in the Left-wing media (cheered on by corrupt tort lawyers) and the Obama Administration (manager of GM), Toyota sales stumbled. But quick and effective marketing picked them right up. Interesting although judged "GUILTY!" by Obama and the liberal media, nothing has been discovered to indicate Toyota was at fault or that the issue of "sudden acceleration" is anything more than driver error. The liberal media counted consumer complaints as evidence, as usual. Nevertheless, Toyota recalled over eight million autos worldwide. (Interesting, yesterday at a supermarket parking lot in Seattle a Lexus, made by Toyota, was pulling into a parking space when its engine revved way up, its tires squealed and it roared up the curb, over the sidewalk and into the Bargreen Drug Store wall. The driver was a shaken old man. Sudden acceleration? Law suit? Don't know.)
All seemed getting back to normal with GM's major competitor, Totota, while GM continued to struggle, even behind non-U.S.owned, non-bankrupt Ford Motor Co.
So Obama Administration Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (also a public Toyota basher) yelled to the media his plans to hit Totota with the largest fine in U. S. transportation history $16.4 million (the last largest was only $1 million) over a gas pedal that was "slow" to return to idle after a driver's foot was picked up. "Investigators" said it took Toyota four months to notify regulators...there were no serious accidents from this "defect". I don't know but the largest fine in history for "failing to notify" seems unfairly high.
And it will be levied by the owner of its major competitor. Hmmm. Where are the anti-competitive watchdogs? Oh, yes, they are Democrats, too, going madly after the private sector, not nationalized auto companies.
(One newspaper article said a cheer could be heard throughout the aisles of private jets owned by tort lawyers. Such an action by the U. S. Government gives tort lawyers -- major contributors to the Democratic Party -- a huge advantage in the myriad lawsuits seeking class action status against Toyota.)
Our government.is CORRUPT It is sad.
Speaking of GM, its CEO is still thrashing around, changing the guard once again, bringing in a guy from Hyundai. Hyundai? 49 year-old Joel Ewanick did a clever campaign allowing customers to return Hyundai cars if they lost their jobs. In a brilliant strategic move GM CEO Whitacre named the guy U. S. marketing VP. Hyundai? The prior VP, a woman named Susan Docherty, didn't perform fast enough, being in the position since December (Ewanick is #4 marketing chief in a year at GM). Mr. Ewanick must be known for his loyalty, coming to GM from Nissan Motor Co., where he jumped in promotion to chief marketing officer in March, yes, that's a couple months ago. Mr. Whitacre is desperate. and seems as clueless and inexperienced as his boss, President Barack Obama.
In another strategic move for GM, U. S. regulators hit Toyota again, this time looking deeply and publically into whether Toyota was too slow in reporting steering issues in 2004 and 2005. That must be getting to the bottom of the barrell, and comes from 21 complaints of 978,000 cars (.002%). Oh, yes, the complaints predictably came from Democratic Party financiers, trial lawyers who are piling on for some $500,000,000 in potential legal fees from class action lawsuits against Toyota
And speaking of Democratic Party financiers, the United Auto Union bosses who loudly and publically gave "wage concessions" to GM have in fact not suffered any such concessions. Seems the new workers who were to be hired at cut-rate wages of $25.65 an hour haven't been hired because some 5,000 old workers are sitting around making 70% $60 an hour waiting to be hired first -- no not working but sucking our taxpayers' money. Let's see, either union bosses are smarter than our U. S. government or our U. S. government knew and lied to us to get its disgusting $65,000,000,000 snatch of U. S. money to give GM to directly benefit the aforesaid unions.
The left-leaning Consumer Reports Magazine (April 14, 2010) issued a "don't buy" recommendation, its first for ten years, on the Lexus GX 460, because its rear slides out at excessive speed and aggressive maneuvering and that just might cause a rollover. Why not just don't drive at excessive speed? Unanswered question because of course the driver would never be at fault, only the for-profit, anti-union manufacturer.
Extra! Extra! Obama-managed General Motors Co. loses only $4,300,000,000 since bankruptcy. (One article mentions that GM is paying union workers not to work. SO, wht's new? And said union is suing said GM for another $450,000,000 for healthcare. That's gratitude for you.)
But more importantly to the Lefdt-wing, GM added a professor of psychology to its board. Oh, yes she was also a Los Angeles City Commissioner (a Democrat I presume). GM proudly stated that the good prof is a Hispanic and would bring diversity to its board, so much more important than things like experience and knowledge to a company that doesn't have to perform, only keep its union workers at any cost to the taxpayers.
This post has nothing to do with the Luddites of Congress, as an earlier post did, but is about the continuing unfair advantage General Motors has over Toyota Motor Corp. Remember, General Motors is owned by the most powerful country in the world, the United States of America. Toyota became the largest automobile in the world by offering consumers products they wanted. Quality was prominant in Toyota's strategy. GM, not so much and it entered bankruptcy in 2009. After being attacked in the Left-wing media (cheered on by corrupt tort lawyers) and the Obama Administration (manager of GM), Toyota sales stumbled. But quick and effective marketing picked them right up. Interesting although judged "GUILTY!" by Obama and the liberal media, nothing has been discovered to indicate Toyota was at fault or that the issue of "sudden acceleration" is anything more than driver error. The liberal media counted consumer complaints as evidence, as usual. Nevertheless, Toyota recalled over eight million autos worldwide. (Interesting, yesterday at a supermarket parking lot in Seattle a Lexus, made by Toyota, was pulling into a parking space when its engine revved way up, its tires squealed and it roared up the curb, over the sidewalk and into the Bargreen Drug Store wall. The driver was a shaken old man. Sudden acceleration? Law suit? Don't know.)
All seemed getting back to normal with GM's major competitor, Totota, while GM continued to struggle, even behind non-U.S.owned, non-bankrupt Ford Motor Co.
So Obama Administration Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (also a public Toyota basher) yelled to the media his plans to hit Totota with the largest fine in U. S. transportation history $16.4 million (the last largest was only $1 million) over a gas pedal that was "slow" to return to idle after a driver's foot was picked up. "Investigators" said it took Toyota four months to notify regulators...there were no serious accidents from this "defect". I don't know but the largest fine in history for "failing to notify" seems unfairly high.
And it will be levied by the owner of its major competitor. Hmmm. Where are the anti-competitive watchdogs? Oh, yes, they are Democrats, too, going madly after the private sector, not nationalized auto companies.
(One newspaper article said a cheer could be heard throughout the aisles of private jets owned by tort lawyers. Such an action by the U. S. Government gives tort lawyers -- major contributors to the Democratic Party -- a huge advantage in the myriad lawsuits seeking class action status against Toyota.)
Our government.is CORRUPT It is sad.
Obama supporter Google given green light
Who says this administration isn't fair...to its friends and supporters. In the midst of suits, investigations and the like, not to mention anti-business rantings by President Obama, from the FTC, SEC, DOJ, DOE, DOT, FDA, Obama supporter Google is given permission to purchase mobile advertising company AdMob Inc. It won't harm competition. Of course not. The FTC said it was a difficult decision, but in the end did politics win?
(IS it another coincidence that General Electric, owner of Obama media arm NBC, should escape the crushing burdens other financial institutions face from Obama's financial services industry takeover bill. In a "compromise" passed May 6 GE Capital Serivces will stay in GE without subjecting it (GE) to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The compromise was engineered specifically for GE after the FDIC bent its rules last year to allow GE to issue government-backed debt. No official word from the transparent Obama Administration how much in campaign contributions this cost GE this time.
Pays to support Obama. And you Americans haven't seen anything yet. Just wait.
(IS it another coincidence that General Electric, owner of Obama media arm NBC, should escape the crushing burdens other financial institutions face from Obama's financial services industry takeover bill. In a "compromise" passed May 6 GE Capital Serivces will stay in GE without subjecting it (GE) to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The compromise was engineered specifically for GE after the FDIC bent its rules last year to allow GE to issue government-backed debt. No official word from the transparent Obama Administration how much in campaign contributions this cost GE this time.
Pays to support Obama. And you Americans haven't seen anything yet. Just wait.
Goldman discusses settlement with SEC
Another conspiracy theory: Obama sues Goldman, Sachs to provide the far-left media with fodder to push "public opinion" against banks, bankers and Wall Street, no matter any reasonableness of evidence. To add substance the government is "investigating" Morgan Stanley for something or another. The story is the end game. Obama desires to grease the skids of his financial industry takeover and the governmnet actions pave the way. And the slurping, pandering media is nothing but a willing propaganda arm for him. And, gee whiz, the Senate passes his bill with four Republicans supporting it. But wait, it's not law yet. The Senate must reconcile its passed bill with that of the U. S. House of Representatives. It'll be another month, month-and-a-half to gather in all the campaign contributions for the November elections, then the 1,500-page bill will most certainly pass, with settlement of the Goldman suit following soon thereafter. And the "investigations" of Morgan and other banks will slip unnoticed from Justice.
Justice. The Rule of Law. GONE!
Justice. The Rule of Law. GONE!
Friday, May 21, 2010
BROWN SHIRTS ? THINK ABOUT IT.
In an article in today's Wall Street Journal ("Tea Parties vs. Unions in November", May 21, 2010 Page A13 ) John Fund describes a few events: "Last August in St. Louis, tea party supporter Kenneth Gladney was set upon by SEIU [Service Employees International Union with 2,200,000 members, primarily of government- and government-related workers] members during a town-hall meeting on health care. They were apparently angry that an African-American was supporting the tea party and hurled the 'n' word at him while beating him to the point where he required hospitalization. St. Louis County officials waited until November to press assault charges against two SEIU members. Four others were charged with interfering with police during the incident. All six have pleaded not guilty." And, "This week, Nina Easton of Fortune magazine reported on an incident in her Washington, D.C., neighborhood in which 500 screaming, placard-waving SEIU members and allies surrounded the home of Greg Baer, deputy general counsel at Bank of America, to protest bank foreclosures. 'Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked—even on the police,' reported Ms. Easton, a neighbor of Mr. Baer. The protestors finally left, only to descend on the nearby home of Peter Scher, a J.P. Morgan Chase executive. 'It appears we've crossed into a new era: the politics of personal intimidation,' Ms. Easton concludes." But of course we have the law on our side. Or do we? It took four months for the authorities to file charges.
And to that add:
"Black Panther intimidation at the polls?; NBPP [New Black Panther Party]: “We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people.” (The enemy, indeed!)
By Michelle Malkin • November 4, 2008 12:25 PM
"Reader Steve e-mails: 'Just after 12:00 noon, Fox News reported that two black panthers were at one location in Philadelphia “guarding” the doorway to a polling station. One carried a nightstick and confronted a citizen who had gone in to the polling place. That citizen called police (he was interviewed by the Philly correspondent for Fox). The citizen reported that police removed the black panther with the night stick, but the other, who lives in the area, remains near the door.'
The New Black Panther Party said yesterday it would send its members out to the polls to ensure its interests on Election Day"
The result of that voter intimidation? (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=155653) Posted: May 18, 2010, 9:07 pm Eastern, By Chelsea Schilling © 2010 WorldNetDaily:
"As WND reported, two men, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, wearing paramilitary uniforms and armed with nightsticks, blocked a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters. Shabazz is leader of the Philadelphia chapter of the New Black Panther Party. After a poll watcher saw one of the men brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters, he called police. 'As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other,' he told Fox News. 'So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they'd been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what.' He said the man with a night stick told him, 'We're tired of white supremacy' and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, 'OK, we're not going to get in a fist fight right here,' and I called the police. 'A poll watcher with the University of Pennsylvania asked the men who they were with. The man with the nightstick responded, 'Uh, security,' and asked why he was taking pictures. He told them, 'I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand.' He continued, 'I am a concerned citizen, and I'm just worried that …' Uhuru Shakur, chairman of the Atlanta chapter, said, 'We love Barack Obama – he gives our people great hope and light for advancement. Every president America has had has been a white man. Now the black man must be given his time to rule. Obama is a man of justice and a leader who wants to do right.' Shakur had warned, 'We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people."' But we have the law on our side...
On Jan. 7, 2009, the Justice Department filed a complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants: the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the two men who appeared at the Philadelphia polling place on Nov. 4, 2008, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson. The complaint accused them of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters. After reviewing the evidence, the Department concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz violated Section 11(b). Thomas Perez assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, said in his testimony, May 14, [2010. that] 'the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes.'" We have the law on our side. Except when the "law" is President Barack Obama and U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
And from the EthiopianReview.com, May 21st, 2010, at 4:00 a.m.: "We now have the second casualty of the Obama Administration from the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. Christian Adams, one of the career trial lawyers who worked on the case, submitted a letter of resignation on Friday, May 14 (effective June 4) apparently in disgust over “the events surrounding the dismissal” of the lawsuit, including testimony earlier that day by the Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights, political appointee Thomas Perez, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The first casualty was Chris Coates, the long-time career lawyer who led the trial team when he was the Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Coates was transferred to South Carolina and relieved of his position as Chief despite his award-winning job performance and his decades-long enforcement of the Voting Rights Act on behalf on racial and ethnic minorities throughout the country." (http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/118567)
Add to this mess, from the Website of discredited "ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities. Since 1970, ACORN has grown to more than 350,000 member families, organized in 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the U.S. and in cities in Argentina, Peru, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Canada. Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote."
Los Angeles Marches Against Racist Arizona Law by Manuel Alderete Saturday, May. 01, 2010 at 6:29 PM info@protestarizona.com "Over 100,000 march to protest racist Arizona 'immigration' law; diverse crowd shows broad support against law...The air was electrified by a presence not felt since the Gran Marcha of 2006. At least 100,000 people marched through Downtown in solidarity with Arizona's victims of a new law that legalizes racial profiling. It is a law that has been denounced by President Obama, DHS Head Janet Nopalitano, the Mayor of Phoenix, the Sheriff of Pima County (Arizona), and even some Republicans who see it as draconian legislation."
And in Seattle: (http://www.isoseattle.blogspot.com/) "5/18/10: Speak Out against Arizona’s racist immigration laws! Come join the Student Worker Coalition and the International Socialist Organization for a Speak Out against Arizona’s racist immigration laws!Tuesday May 18th, on the HUB lawn, University of Washington 11:00am-1:00pm" and (http://nomattimen.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/hundreds-of-thousands-march-for-immigrant-rights-on-international-workers-day/) outlined the protests around the country. Seattle, Washington The Seattle part: As many as twenty thousand immigrants and their supporters streamed through the streets of Seattle for the tenth annual May Day march for immigrants rights. As the march progressed, many joined in from the sidewalks. The march wound through Seattle’s International District and then through the downtown area to Memorial Stadium in the Seattle Center. The marchers were primarily Latino workers and their families. Unions were well represented, with large contingents from SEIU local 6, Teamsters 177 and other unions. Casa Latina and Comite Pro-Amnistia also had a strong presence. The Seattle ANSWER Coalition participated, attracting many to its contingent with militant chanting. One of the most popular chants was “Obama, escucha, Estamos en la lucha!” (Obama, Listen, we are in the struggle.) Many marchers held signs denouncing Arizona’s racist SB 1070. One contingent of marchers wore matching t-shirts reading “Do I look illegal?” Does it matter if they vote for Democrats? (Yes, Mexican citizens voting. Weirder things have been passed into law over the Constitution.)
Now perhaps this is a conspiracy theory. The president of the United States is a man who got his start with community organizing for ACORN. He at best is a fervent Progressive who believes strongly that the free-enterprise/Capitallist system is unfair and that social justice is the political system we should adopt. Or something like that. Would he support -- or continue to support -- this activism/intimidatioin/voter "Democratic voter assistance" in the mode of Adolf Hitler's Brown Shirts? 2.2 million SEIU workers (and a substantial number of non-SEIU government-connected employees) 350,000 ACORN "member families" with, say two or three members is another million activists, how many Hispanic activists willing to demonstrate? Think about it. Three or four million demonstrators, some not afraid of using violence, around the polls, with perhaps less than supportive government agents, and union police and firefighters.
THINK ABOUT IT.
And to that add:
"Black Panther intimidation at the polls?; NBPP [New Black Panther Party]: “We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people.” (The enemy, indeed!)
By Michelle Malkin • November 4, 2008 12:25 PM
"Reader Steve e-mails: 'Just after 12:00 noon, Fox News reported that two black panthers were at one location in Philadelphia “guarding” the doorway to a polling station. One carried a nightstick and confronted a citizen who had gone in to the polling place. That citizen called police (he was interviewed by the Philly correspondent for Fox). The citizen reported that police removed the black panther with the night stick, but the other, who lives in the area, remains near the door.'
The New Black Panther Party said yesterday it would send its members out to the polls to ensure its interests on Election Day"
The result of that voter intimidation? (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=155653) Posted: May 18, 2010, 9:07 pm Eastern, By Chelsea Schilling © 2010 WorldNetDaily:
"As WND reported, two men, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, wearing paramilitary uniforms and armed with nightsticks, blocked a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters. Shabazz is leader of the Philadelphia chapter of the New Black Panther Party. After a poll watcher saw one of the men brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters, he called police. 'As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other,' he told Fox News. 'So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they'd been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what.' He said the man with a night stick told him, 'We're tired of white supremacy' and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, 'OK, we're not going to get in a fist fight right here,' and I called the police. 'A poll watcher with the University of Pennsylvania asked the men who they were with. The man with the nightstick responded, 'Uh, security,' and asked why he was taking pictures. He told them, 'I think it might be a little intimidating that you have a stick in your hand.' He continued, 'I am a concerned citizen, and I'm just worried that …' Uhuru Shakur, chairman of the Atlanta chapter, said, 'We love Barack Obama – he gives our people great hope and light for advancement. Every president America has had has been a white man. Now the black man must be given his time to rule. Obama is a man of justice and a leader who wants to do right.' Shakur had warned, 'We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people."' But we have the law on our side...
On Jan. 7, 2009, the Justice Department filed a complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants: the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the two men who appeared at the Philadelphia polling place on Nov. 4, 2008, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson. The complaint accused them of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters. After reviewing the evidence, the Department concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz violated Section 11(b). Thomas Perez assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, said in his testimony, May 14, [2010. that] 'the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes.'" We have the law on our side. Except when the "law" is President Barack Obama and U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
And from the EthiopianReview.com, May 21st, 2010, at 4:00 a.m.: "We now have the second casualty of the Obama Administration from the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. Christian Adams, one of the career trial lawyers who worked on the case, submitted a letter of resignation on Friday, May 14 (effective June 4) apparently in disgust over “the events surrounding the dismissal” of the lawsuit, including testimony earlier that day by the Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights, political appointee Thomas Perez, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The first casualty was Chris Coates, the long-time career lawyer who led the trial team when he was the Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Coates was transferred to South Carolina and relieved of his position as Chief despite his award-winning job performance and his decades-long enforcement of the Voting Rights Act on behalf on racial and ethnic minorities throughout the country." (http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/118567)
Add to this mess, from the Website of discredited "ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities. Since 1970, ACORN has grown to more than 350,000 member families, organized in 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the U.S. and in cities in Argentina, Peru, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Canada. Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote."
Los Angeles Marches Against Racist Arizona Law by Manuel Alderete Saturday, May. 01, 2010 at 6:29 PM info@protestarizona.com "Over 100,000 march to protest racist Arizona 'immigration' law; diverse crowd shows broad support against law...The air was electrified by a presence not felt since the Gran Marcha of 2006. At least 100,000 people marched through Downtown in solidarity with Arizona's victims of a new law that legalizes racial profiling. It is a law that has been denounced by President Obama, DHS Head Janet Nopalitano, the Mayor of Phoenix, the Sheriff of Pima County (Arizona), and even some Republicans who see it as draconian legislation."
And in Seattle: (http://www.isoseattle.blogspot.com/) "5/18/10: Speak Out against Arizona’s racist immigration laws! Come join the Student Worker Coalition and the International Socialist Organization for a Speak Out against Arizona’s racist immigration laws!Tuesday May 18th, on the HUB lawn, University of Washington 11:00am-1:00pm" and (http://nomattimen.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/hundreds-of-thousands-march-for-immigrant-rights-on-international-workers-day/) outlined the protests around the country. Seattle, Washington The Seattle part: As many as twenty thousand immigrants and their supporters streamed through the streets of Seattle for the tenth annual May Day march for immigrants rights. As the march progressed, many joined in from the sidewalks. The march wound through Seattle’s International District and then through the downtown area to Memorial Stadium in the Seattle Center. The marchers were primarily Latino workers and their families. Unions were well represented, with large contingents from SEIU local 6, Teamsters 177 and other unions. Casa Latina and Comite Pro-Amnistia also had a strong presence. The Seattle ANSWER Coalition participated, attracting many to its contingent with militant chanting. One of the most popular chants was “Obama, escucha, Estamos en la lucha!” (Obama, Listen, we are in the struggle.) Many marchers held signs denouncing Arizona’s racist SB 1070. One contingent of marchers wore matching t-shirts reading “Do I look illegal?” Does it matter if they vote for Democrats? (Yes, Mexican citizens voting. Weirder things have been passed into law over the Constitution.)
Now perhaps this is a conspiracy theory. The president of the United States is a man who got his start with community organizing for ACORN. He at best is a fervent Progressive who believes strongly that the free-enterprise/Capitallist system is unfair and that social justice is the political system we should adopt. Or something like that. Would he support -- or continue to support -- this activism/intimidatioin/voter "Democratic voter assistance" in the mode of Adolf Hitler's Brown Shirts? 2.2 million SEIU workers (and a substantial number of non-SEIU government-connected employees) 350,000 ACORN "member families" with, say two or three members is another million activists, how many Hispanic activists willing to demonstrate? Think about it. Three or four million demonstrators, some not afraid of using violence, around the polls, with perhaps less than supportive government agents, and union police and firefighters.
THINK ABOUT IT.
Meanwhile Back at the Ranch
The People's Republic of China holds about $2,500,000,000,000 (trillion) in foreign-exchange reserves. Analysts believe that the majority is in dollars. China is hugely successful in selling products to the U. S. while at the same time restricting access to its markets in a variety of ways. But next week U. S. "Commerce" Secretary (commerce being a somewhat forbidden word by the Obama administration) and former Washington State governor Gary Locke, will go to Beijing to tell them they're not playing nice with us and that we are feeling increasingly unwanted. What? China wants to own all the technology developed in the world and encourages "indigenous innovation"? That's not fair, but Secretary Locke isn't going to be specific about how he'll talk China into being nice and by the way move up the value of the former Yen, now Yuen. Of course, and one can hear the roars of laughter across China.
Yesterday the United States Senate passed the Obama Administration's requested takeover of the financial services in the U. S. Its bill must be reconcilied with a less burdensome one passed by the House of Representatives. Signing is expected perhaps by July. Stay tuned for another plank in the destruction of freedom in the world!
Meanwhile back at the ranch, while President Obama is attempting to takeover the United States financial services industry by suing Goldman Sach to prove "Wall Street" is corrupt and dangerous to the economy, as are all large banking organizations, Obama's erstwhile fellow dictator-wannabeeVenezuelan President Hugo Chavez is undermining the reputation, strength and ultimately the solvency of his enemy, none other than President Barack Obama of the United States of America. Citizen Hugo is grabbing $20,000,000,000 from The People's Republic of China in exchange for oil in the future and thanking Chinese president Hu Jintao and China. This was bye-the-bye one of the largest loans ever made by China. The money will "save" Chavez from his progressive foolishness (which is being copied by Mr. Obama) and energy shortages, broken infrastructure, 25% inflation and shrinking eonomy.
The hapless president of the United States doesn't seem to have a clue. He simply wants to get reelected and have a legacy up there with George Washington.
As earlier posts noted, China is eating our lunch, or eating us for lunch. And our president is going after one of the most successful United States corporations.
Of course.
Yesterday the United States Senate passed the Obama Administration's requested takeover of the financial services in the U. S. Its bill must be reconcilied with a less burdensome one passed by the House of Representatives. Signing is expected perhaps by July. Stay tuned for another plank in the destruction of freedom in the world!
Meanwhile back at the ranch, while President Obama is attempting to takeover the United States financial services industry by suing Goldman Sach to prove "Wall Street" is corrupt and dangerous to the economy, as are all large banking organizations, Obama's erstwhile fellow dictator-wannabeeVenezuelan President Hugo Chavez is undermining the reputation, strength and ultimately the solvency of his enemy, none other than President Barack Obama of the United States of America. Citizen Hugo is grabbing $20,000,000,000 from The People's Republic of China in exchange for oil in the future and thanking Chinese president Hu Jintao and China. This was bye-the-bye one of the largest loans ever made by China. The money will "save" Chavez from his progressive foolishness (which is being copied by Mr. Obama) and energy shortages, broken infrastructure, 25% inflation and shrinking eonomy.
The hapless president of the United States doesn't seem to have a clue. He simply wants to get reelected and have a legacy up there with George Washington.
As earlier posts noted, China is eating our lunch, or eating us for lunch. And our president is going after one of the most successful United States corporations.
Of course.
Letter to the Editor (as published in the Wall Street Journal)
My published response (The Wall Street Journal, Friday, May 21, 2010, page A14):
Mr. Gordon's contention that changing incentives would lower the amount of government waste is faulty. The real answer is simple: privatize. Take the government out of operating, managing and controlling things. Bureaucrats will figure out a way to game any system. Incentives cannot be encompassed in 2,000-page laws filled with complex regulations and prolix language. Incentives must be simple. Simplicity is anathema to politicians who use complexity to derive campaign contributions and support from those who benefit.
It is very difficult to devise correct incentives and to anticipate unintended consequences. Let millions of concerned humans each make informed decisions and, voilá, correct incentives. As for the uncovering of Bernie Madoff's vast fraud, giving bureaucrats a share of the loot would set them on every possible source of money throughout the land. This is exactly what the Democrats have encouraged with their friends, the trial lawyers. That's not the answer. Perhaps the answer is making individuals responsible for their decisions, as was the case with Madoff's investors: They lost their investments. That is the market working.
Theodore M. Wight
Seattle
[http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html]
The article (The Wall Street Journal)
OPINION MAY 14, 2010 Incentives vs. Government Waste
What if bureaucrats could benefit financially from finding cost savings?Article Comments (80) more in Opinion »Email Print Save This ↓ More
By JOHN STEELE GORDON
Why are profit-seeking corporations so much more efficient and innovative than bureaucracies? A significant part of the answer to that question lies in the fact that bureaucracies are often hamstrung by legislation, and amending legislation is always a cumbersome and politics-ridden process. But another significant part of the answer lies in the phrase "profit-seeking."
Corporations exist only to create wealth. The more they create, the more their stockholders and employees prosper. Thus it's a corporate manager's job to look for ways to increase profits. More, their personal success depends on doing so. For the employees who come up with the really bright ideas prosper even more than their fellow workers, being rewarded with raises, bonuses and promotions.
But there are only three basic ways to increase profits: raise prices, cut costs or innovate. Raising prices is easy. Just cross out $19.95 and write in $22.95. Unfortunately, in a competitive economy, raising prices is going to cost you market share and is thus self-defeating. So corporate employees have no choice but to pursue the far more difficult second and third options, searching for ways to make the same product cheaper or to create a better product at the same cost. They do this hard work because they are highly incentivized by self-interest to do so.
Bureaucrats, alas, are not. In fact, they are highly disincentivized to increase efficiency and to innovate. In business a penny saved is a penny earned, the savings flowing directly to the all-important bottom line. But in a bureaucracy, a penny saved is a penny likely to be cut from next year's budget. And prestige in a bureaucracy comes not from profit but from the size of one's budget. So even accidental savings are likely to be suppressed with make-work.
How can this unfortunate human reality be changed? How can we make the Department of Motor Vehicles as efficient and innovative as, say, Google or Goldman Sachs?
Well, good luck with that.
But it is possible to incentivize public (and nonprofit) employees to find ways to save money rather than waste it, to find new and better ways of doing business. There is no better example of how to go about that than the British Royal Navy in the age of Admiral Lord Nelson (1758-1805).
The navy's job in the endless wars of the 18th century was to capture enemy warships and to sweep enemy commerce from the seas. As the novels of Patrick O'Brian and C. S. Forrester so vividly bring to life, the Royal Navy was exceedingly good at doing exactly that. No small reason was that the navy gave its officers and men an enormous incentive to capture enemy warships and merchantmen: the whole value of the ships and cargoes they captured.
The Cruisers and Convoys Act of 1708 established a prize court to condemn captured ships and, if they were merchantmen, sell them and their cargoes. If they were warships, the Royal Navy would buy them, which is why so many British warships in the 18th century had French names.
The money gained was then distributed by eighths according to a formula. One-eighth went to the admiral who signed the orders under which the ship or ships sailed. (All ships in sight at the moment of capture shared in the prize money.) Two-eighths went to the captain, one-eighth to the commissioned officers, one-eighth to the senior warrant officers, one-eighth to the petty officers and midshipmen, and two-eighths to the crew.
This could amount to a very great deal of money. When HMS Active and HMS Favourite captured the treasure-laden Spanish frigate Hermione on May 31, 1762, the two captains each received £65,000 in prize money, enough to make them quite rich by the standards of the mid-18th century. The crew received £482 each, many times a year's pay for an able seaman.
Now, to be sure, bureaucracies can't sally forth, capture an enemy bureaucracy, and sell it to the highest bidder. But they can certainly find new ways of doing their jobs that are cheaper and better than the old ways, especially if they are handsomely rewarded for doing so.
Let's say the federal widget inspection office in Seattle comes up with a way to save a million dollars a year by changing the method it uses to inspect widgets. Why not give personnel in that office the first year's savings, distributing it according to a set formula akin to that of the Royal Navy's? A million dollars in "prize money" would certainly be an incentive to motivate even the most slothful government office to find new ways to do things.
It wouldn't cost the government anything (it's found money after all, just like the Spanish treasure in the Hermione's hold). And it would pay big dividends to the government year after year, as the innovation was adopted in other widget inspection offices across the country. Further, it would powerfully influence other offices and other government departments to be the first to come up with their own innovations and efficiencies in order to get on the gravy train.
Had the personnel of the Securities and Exchange Commission been as richly and personally incentivized to uncover securities fraud as the sailors of the Royal Navy were to capture enemy ships, Bernard Madoff would have been in jail years ago.
Self-interest is an immensely powerful force in human affairs—the very engine behind capitalism's success. Harnessing it to save money and increase innovation in a bureaucracy, just as the Royal Navy harnessed it to capture enemy ships, would be the biggest innovation of all and save the government billions.
Mr. Gordon is the author of "Hamilton's Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of Our National Debt," out in a recently revised edition from Walker & Company.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A17
Mr. Gordon's contention that changing incentives would lower the amount of government waste is faulty. The real answer is simple: privatize. Take the government out of operating, managing and controlling things. Bureaucrats will figure out a way to game any system. Incentives cannot be encompassed in 2,000-page laws filled with complex regulations and prolix language. Incentives must be simple. Simplicity is anathema to politicians who use complexity to derive campaign contributions and support from those who benefit.
It is very difficult to devise correct incentives and to anticipate unintended consequences. Let millions of concerned humans each make informed decisions and, voilá, correct incentives. As for the uncovering of Bernie Madoff's vast fraud, giving bureaucrats a share of the loot would set them on every possible source of money throughout the land. This is exactly what the Democrats have encouraged with their friends, the trial lawyers. That's not the answer. Perhaps the answer is making individuals responsible for their decisions, as was the case with Madoff's investors: They lost their investments. That is the market working.
Theodore M. Wight
Seattle
[http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html]
The article (The Wall Street Journal)
OPINION MAY 14, 2010 Incentives vs. Government Waste
What if bureaucrats could benefit financially from finding cost savings?Article Comments (80) more in Opinion »Email Print Save This ↓ More
By JOHN STEELE GORDON
Why are profit-seeking corporations so much more efficient and innovative than bureaucracies? A significant part of the answer to that question lies in the fact that bureaucracies are often hamstrung by legislation, and amending legislation is always a cumbersome and politics-ridden process. But another significant part of the answer lies in the phrase "profit-seeking."
Corporations exist only to create wealth. The more they create, the more their stockholders and employees prosper. Thus it's a corporate manager's job to look for ways to increase profits. More, their personal success depends on doing so. For the employees who come up with the really bright ideas prosper even more than their fellow workers, being rewarded with raises, bonuses and promotions.
But there are only three basic ways to increase profits: raise prices, cut costs or innovate. Raising prices is easy. Just cross out $19.95 and write in $22.95. Unfortunately, in a competitive economy, raising prices is going to cost you market share and is thus self-defeating. So corporate employees have no choice but to pursue the far more difficult second and third options, searching for ways to make the same product cheaper or to create a better product at the same cost. They do this hard work because they are highly incentivized by self-interest to do so.
Bureaucrats, alas, are not. In fact, they are highly disincentivized to increase efficiency and to innovate. In business a penny saved is a penny earned, the savings flowing directly to the all-important bottom line. But in a bureaucracy, a penny saved is a penny likely to be cut from next year's budget. And prestige in a bureaucracy comes not from profit but from the size of one's budget. So even accidental savings are likely to be suppressed with make-work.
How can this unfortunate human reality be changed? How can we make the Department of Motor Vehicles as efficient and innovative as, say, Google or Goldman Sachs?
Well, good luck with that.
But it is possible to incentivize public (and nonprofit) employees to find ways to save money rather than waste it, to find new and better ways of doing business. There is no better example of how to go about that than the British Royal Navy in the age of Admiral Lord Nelson (1758-1805).
The navy's job in the endless wars of the 18th century was to capture enemy warships and to sweep enemy commerce from the seas. As the novels of Patrick O'Brian and C. S. Forrester so vividly bring to life, the Royal Navy was exceedingly good at doing exactly that. No small reason was that the navy gave its officers and men an enormous incentive to capture enemy warships and merchantmen: the whole value of the ships and cargoes they captured.
The Cruisers and Convoys Act of 1708 established a prize court to condemn captured ships and, if they were merchantmen, sell them and their cargoes. If they were warships, the Royal Navy would buy them, which is why so many British warships in the 18th century had French names.
The money gained was then distributed by eighths according to a formula. One-eighth went to the admiral who signed the orders under which the ship or ships sailed. (All ships in sight at the moment of capture shared in the prize money.) Two-eighths went to the captain, one-eighth to the commissioned officers, one-eighth to the senior warrant officers, one-eighth to the petty officers and midshipmen, and two-eighths to the crew.
This could amount to a very great deal of money. When HMS Active and HMS Favourite captured the treasure-laden Spanish frigate Hermione on May 31, 1762, the two captains each received £65,000 in prize money, enough to make them quite rich by the standards of the mid-18th century. The crew received £482 each, many times a year's pay for an able seaman.
Now, to be sure, bureaucracies can't sally forth, capture an enemy bureaucracy, and sell it to the highest bidder. But they can certainly find new ways of doing their jobs that are cheaper and better than the old ways, especially if they are handsomely rewarded for doing so.
Let's say the federal widget inspection office in Seattle comes up with a way to save a million dollars a year by changing the method it uses to inspect widgets. Why not give personnel in that office the first year's savings, distributing it according to a set formula akin to that of the Royal Navy's? A million dollars in "prize money" would certainly be an incentive to motivate even the most slothful government office to find new ways to do things.
It wouldn't cost the government anything (it's found money after all, just like the Spanish treasure in the Hermione's hold). And it would pay big dividends to the government year after year, as the innovation was adopted in other widget inspection offices across the country. Further, it would powerfully influence other offices and other government departments to be the first to come up with their own innovations and efficiencies in order to get on the gravy train.
Had the personnel of the Securities and Exchange Commission been as richly and personally incentivized to uncover securities fraud as the sailors of the Royal Navy were to capture enemy ships, Bernard Madoff would have been in jail years ago.
Self-interest is an immensely powerful force in human affairs—the very engine behind capitalism's success. Harnessing it to save money and increase innovation in a bureaucracy, just as the Royal Navy harnessed it to capture enemy ships, would be the biggest innovation of all and save the government billions.
Mr. Gordon is the author of "Hamilton's Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of Our National Debt," out in a recently revised edition from Walker & Company.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A17
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
