The alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.
You remember the JSF right? That aircraft that is almost complete and ready to be distributed? Ready for it right? I hope so because you paid for it.
Now pray that we don't pray for an alternate engine. Thanks to Citizens Against Government Waste for bringing this to the public's ever diminishing attention spans.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
"FDR saved America: Hoover was the bad guy!"
You're almost right.
Hoover crippled his economy by doing exactly what everyone praised FDR for doing when he "saved" America from Depression. How the depression really ended (and some would argue that we never really recovered) is a topic for another blog (It wasn't FDR). But i need to address this common belief.
What they don't teach in school is that Hoover promoted legislation on conservation, oil, electric power, flood control, farming, labor arbitration, foreign debt, child hygiene, ocean shipping, exports and many many more. Sounds great right? Sounds familiar right? Didn't FDR promote a lot of similar forms of legislation that millions of Americans today applaud him for?
So how did this ruin the economy?
Hoover believed that certain people made too much money. He didn't address, however that a ton of the wealth that rich people acquire goes into savings and it also goes to fuel business investment. This benefits all society! Wealthy entrepreneurs create jobs, invest millions, and contribute to economic survival.
He also believed in what economists call, "purchasing power fallacy." He even said, and i quote, that he wanted: "To maintain the purchasing power of labor through high wages." He also believed that under no circumstances should companies ever lower wages of it's employees.
Here's the catch. This all sounds familiar to anyone who got a decent grade in History back in high school. But this shit right here is what they didn't teach you: High wages can not possibly be increased without an increase in production or productivity. When the government push up wages artificially above what can be justified by actual productivity, the only possible result is higher unemployment.
Answer this one: Would you rather A)Keep your job but have to deal with lower wages or B)Advocate higher wages (that the company can not maintain) and just get canned?
He also championed the Railway Labor Act which interfered with private labor relations. The act empowered the unions at the expense of the employers and this hurts the consumer. He also helped to push easy credit by having the Fed simply print more money. Easy money leads to mistakes in investment which leads to a bubble which eventually pops. (Housing Bubble...sound familiar?)
Hoover wanted to eliminate "destructive competition." *sighs* What destructive competition? Competition is what lowers cost and keeps consumers happy!
He also pushed for high protectionist tariffs. Gee, i wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the people who benefited from them, were the ones who were too lazy (or simply weren't good enough) to compete for your business and decided instead to put there millions into his party. These tariffs only exacerbated the Great Depression!
He also taxed everything imaginable. We can thank Hoover for the following taxes: tax on gasoline, tires, cars, electric energy, malt, toiletries, furs, jewelry, and many many more. He also introduced stock taxes, taxes on bank checks, bond transfers, telephones, telegraphs, and radio messages. Then there was the raise of the personal income tax. All of this adding more and more fuel to the burning fire. (Hmmm.... Gee wizz mister, didn't we have a Revolution or something because of something along these same lines?)
So why do we as a society LOVE FDR (the thug and slayer of our Constitutional rights) for doing exactly what Hoover did only on a larger scale?
Better yet, why are we still doing this today?
A great free-market capitalist once said: "Isn't the definition of insanity when you do the same things over and over again and expect to get different results?"
[Factual references taken from "How Capitalism Saved America" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo]
Hoover crippled his economy by doing exactly what everyone praised FDR for doing when he "saved" America from Depression. How the depression really ended (and some would argue that we never really recovered) is a topic for another blog (It wasn't FDR). But i need to address this common belief.
What they don't teach in school is that Hoover promoted legislation on conservation, oil, electric power, flood control, farming, labor arbitration, foreign debt, child hygiene, ocean shipping, exports and many many more. Sounds great right? Sounds familiar right? Didn't FDR promote a lot of similar forms of legislation that millions of Americans today applaud him for?
So how did this ruin the economy?
Hoover believed that certain people made too much money. He didn't address, however that a ton of the wealth that rich people acquire goes into savings and it also goes to fuel business investment. This benefits all society! Wealthy entrepreneurs create jobs, invest millions, and contribute to economic survival.
He also believed in what economists call, "purchasing power fallacy." He even said, and i quote, that he wanted: "To maintain the purchasing power of labor through high wages." He also believed that under no circumstances should companies ever lower wages of it's employees.
Here's the catch. This all sounds familiar to anyone who got a decent grade in History back in high school. But this shit right here is what they didn't teach you: High wages can not possibly be increased without an increase in production or productivity. When the government push up wages artificially above what can be justified by actual productivity, the only possible result is higher unemployment.
Answer this one: Would you rather A)Keep your job but have to deal with lower wages or B)Advocate higher wages (that the company can not maintain) and just get canned?
He also championed the Railway Labor Act which interfered with private labor relations. The act empowered the unions at the expense of the employers and this hurts the consumer. He also helped to push easy credit by having the Fed simply print more money. Easy money leads to mistakes in investment which leads to a bubble which eventually pops. (Housing Bubble...sound familiar?)
Hoover wanted to eliminate "destructive competition." *sighs* What destructive competition? Competition is what lowers cost and keeps consumers happy!
He also pushed for high protectionist tariffs. Gee, i wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the people who benefited from them, were the ones who were too lazy (or simply weren't good enough) to compete for your business and decided instead to put there millions into his party. These tariffs only exacerbated the Great Depression!
He also taxed everything imaginable. We can thank Hoover for the following taxes: tax on gasoline, tires, cars, electric energy, malt, toiletries, furs, jewelry, and many many more. He also introduced stock taxes, taxes on bank checks, bond transfers, telephones, telegraphs, and radio messages. Then there was the raise of the personal income tax. All of this adding more and more fuel to the burning fire. (Hmmm.... Gee wizz mister, didn't we have a Revolution or something because of something along these same lines?)
So why do we as a society LOVE FDR (the thug and slayer of our Constitutional rights) for doing exactly what Hoover did only on a larger scale?
Better yet, why are we still doing this today?
A great free-market capitalist once said: "Isn't the definition of insanity when you do the same things over and over again and expect to get different results?"
[Factual references taken from "How Capitalism Saved America" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo]
Monday, May 24, 2010
"I hate rich people!"
Really? I LOVE THEM
Rich people are the reason that flat screen tv's are available at rock bottom prices and the reason that the computer that i am typing this post up on is more powerful then the computer that sent the space shuttle to the moon!
How does this happen? Well, let me explain it.
(As i've said before, THESE ARE BROAD STROKES)
(And i must also say again that i am not an economic professor or a political genius. This is just my view from down here.)
When something like...say...the iPhone came out, they were not readily available to the masses. The original price for the iPhone was almost 600 dollars and i don't know a lot of people my age who have 600 dollars floating around. But there are people who do. Lots of them bought the phone and that in itself made the prices start to slowly decline. It's been years since it first came out so the price drop wasn't quick but it did happen. Why? Rich people who could afford the product in the first place made the prices drop by creating competition.
You would think that prices rise. But that is not the nature of business. Only business in danger begin to sell their products for more, though some do cater only to the super rich (Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, etc).
Another example: DVD players.
When they first came out, only the wealthy families had them. But many wealthy families began to buy them and companies sprang up to make the product. When they did, they had to compete with each other for business. Technology also improved with competition and manufacturing DVD players became cheaper and cheaper, allowing the companies to do what they had sought out to do in the very beginning: Sell a low price product that every American can afford.
My parents first DVD player cost upwards of 400 dollars. The one in my apartment was a housewarming gift that cost a whooping 30 bucks.
Yes, this kind of thing takes time. When companies compete for your money, they naturally drive costs down. It is every companies (except the stupid ones) goal to produce a product that they can sell to every American.
Rich people just get to go first.
Rich people are the reason that flat screen tv's are available at rock bottom prices and the reason that the computer that i am typing this post up on is more powerful then the computer that sent the space shuttle to the moon!
How does this happen? Well, let me explain it.
(As i've said before, THESE ARE BROAD STROKES)
(And i must also say again that i am not an economic professor or a political genius. This is just my view from down here.)
When something like...say...the iPhone came out, they were not readily available to the masses. The original price for the iPhone was almost 600 dollars and i don't know a lot of people my age who have 600 dollars floating around. But there are people who do. Lots of them bought the phone and that in itself made the prices start to slowly decline. It's been years since it first came out so the price drop wasn't quick but it did happen. Why? Rich people who could afford the product in the first place made the prices drop by creating competition.
You would think that prices rise. But that is not the nature of business. Only business in danger begin to sell their products for more, though some do cater only to the super rich (Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, etc).
Another example: DVD players.
When they first came out, only the wealthy families had them. But many wealthy families began to buy them and companies sprang up to make the product. When they did, they had to compete with each other for business. Technology also improved with competition and manufacturing DVD players became cheaper and cheaper, allowing the companies to do what they had sought out to do in the very beginning: Sell a low price product that every American can afford.
My parents first DVD player cost upwards of 400 dollars. The one in my apartment was a housewarming gift that cost a whooping 30 bucks.
Yes, this kind of thing takes time. When companies compete for your money, they naturally drive costs down. It is every companies (except the stupid ones) goal to produce a product that they can sell to every American.
Rich people just get to go first.
"But we need Government to help us..."
While trying to explain the broad strokes of free market, i was challenged by a fellow employee. He was adamant in explaining that if it weren't for the empire, we wouldn't have the roads and highways that we have now. And you know what? He's absolutely right.
We'd have better ones.
Not long ago in the 20's-30's, roads and railways were built by private companies. These roads were beautiful, went to specific destinations and were built with the public in mind. Why? This is what happens with free market. If you want to market a product (even roads) it is advantageous to build the best and most efficient product possible because competition is everywhere. People won't buy your product if it is not good enough to buy.
Let me digress slightly.
When the Great Northern Railway was built, the owner of the company spent millions of dollars building impecable lines through navigable country side. The GN's lines could also be seen dotted with storage facilities for near by farmers to use. They spared no expense in creating a top rail line that could better benefit the consumer and the people who used the lines to transport goods.
Side note: When something like a railroad companies are built, the prices are more or less fixed (that's just the nature of big business). When customers are added, prices drop.
But being the best in business has it's enemies. Some will compete with a big business by immitating them and by building or selling a better product for a lower price. This is what drives prices down and this competion caters to the public. For your product to succeed, you have to be better than the others. We've saved millions thanks to company competition!
But there is another way to deal with competition. Many of the real "Robber Barons," turned to the government for help to deal with their competition. They lobbied and spent money on political parties and members of legislature to start regulating the Railroad. Why? You think they give a shit about safety or any of the hundreds of other things that they say the regulations support? Of course not! They are destroying the competition through legislation and price fixing instead of making their own product better!
So when the government provided subsides to companies to build railways, they paid them by the mile. The lines were build in a mad rush and they often went in loops or circles or over seanic routes to guarantee larger payouts by the government. What ended up happening? Dozens of railroads went bankrupt and they were given more subsides to start all over again.
In the case of the Great Northern, the government didn't need to get involved to make better lines. When they did get involved in the railways, they didn't care who they pleased because it was just free money to them. GN had to please it's customers to keep them and they kept their customers (until Regulations prevailed) because they had to produce a product that satisfied the masses.
Moral of the story?
We don't need government to do everything for us! Are we really so stupid (collectively) that we honestly believe that private companies could not provide a better quality product? Do they think that we can not sustain ourselves because we can and we DID until the dawn of FDR and his legion of thugs.
We need to stop trying to control the market and we need to set it free.
We'd have better ones.
Not long ago in the 20's-30's, roads and railways were built by private companies. These roads were beautiful, went to specific destinations and were built with the public in mind. Why? This is what happens with free market. If you want to market a product (even roads) it is advantageous to build the best and most efficient product possible because competition is everywhere. People won't buy your product if it is not good enough to buy.
Let me digress slightly.
When the Great Northern Railway was built, the owner of the company spent millions of dollars building impecable lines through navigable country side. The GN's lines could also be seen dotted with storage facilities for near by farmers to use. They spared no expense in creating a top rail line that could better benefit the consumer and the people who used the lines to transport goods.
Side note: When something like a railroad companies are built, the prices are more or less fixed (that's just the nature of big business). When customers are added, prices drop.
But being the best in business has it's enemies. Some will compete with a big business by immitating them and by building or selling a better product for a lower price. This is what drives prices down and this competion caters to the public. For your product to succeed, you have to be better than the others. We've saved millions thanks to company competition!
But there is another way to deal with competition. Many of the real "Robber Barons," turned to the government for help to deal with their competition. They lobbied and spent money on political parties and members of legislature to start regulating the Railroad. Why? You think they give a shit about safety or any of the hundreds of other things that they say the regulations support? Of course not! They are destroying the competition through legislation and price fixing instead of making their own product better!
So when the government provided subsides to companies to build railways, they paid them by the mile. The lines were build in a mad rush and they often went in loops or circles or over seanic routes to guarantee larger payouts by the government. What ended up happening? Dozens of railroads went bankrupt and they were given more subsides to start all over again.
In the case of the Great Northern, the government didn't need to get involved to make better lines. When they did get involved in the railways, they didn't care who they pleased because it was just free money to them. GN had to please it's customers to keep them and they kept their customers (until Regulations prevailed) because they had to produce a product that satisfied the masses.
Moral of the story?
We don't need government to do everything for us! Are we really so stupid (collectively) that we honestly believe that private companies could not provide a better quality product? Do they think that we can not sustain ourselves because we can and we DID until the dawn of FDR and his legion of thugs.
We need to stop trying to control the market and we need to set it free.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Cash for Gold
I had planned on posting something serious.
But then i decided against it.
Although i could almost see our government doing something this stupid.
But then i decided against it.
Although i could almost see our government doing something this stupid.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
"When did this all start?"
Today, i will try to sum this up without sounding like a complete idiot. But first, something has to be made abundantly clear:
What i know about government is only slightly more than the average person my age. For more detailed and pointed questions, i can only direct you to books, websites, or professors that i know. As my blog title goes, this is just my view from down here.
That doesn't mean that i'm not right. It just means that my picture is blurrier than others.
Back in the early 1900's the Supreme Court stuck like tar to the Constitution. The fabled Four Horsemen (HEROES in my book) Justice Butler, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Van Devanter dissented on legislation after legislation, using the Constitution to strike down tyranny as it tried to violate our Natural Rights. To them, the commerce clause had only to do with interstate commerce and commerce had to involve the movement of goods. PERIOD. Free market and due process actually meant something. Contracts were unbreakable by the government. Congress only had 18 enumerated powers. And the rights of the INDIVIDUAL were strictly upheld.
For example: The Lochner case of 1905. In Lochner (I must quote here because i couldn't put it in better terms if i spent all day trying) "The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a New York State law that limited the number of hours a baker could work. How dare a state in the land of opportunity try to steal the liberty of a laborer to work and a small businessperson to employ them? That is precisely what the New York legislature attempted. And this theft is precisely what goes on everyday in twenty-first century America. But the Lochner court, one hundred years ago, would have none of it!" - Judge Napolitano.
They also struck down a law that would require women to have a minimum wage, clearly violating the Contracts Clause. I can tell you that as a woman, and a proud one, i don't need anyone HOLDING MY DAMNED HAND! Here we were, struggling for decades to get the right to vote, and then suddenly the government wants to walk me to work, make sure i got there alright, and make sure i get paid properly? Once more, the Four Heroes dissented to defend our Constitutional right to have contracts and another New Deal policy was crushed.
I am no scholar, but i'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers never wanted big government to chaperon me to work!
Back on track before i loose myself.
Economic crises at the time began to call for immediate action. The Supreme Court only had a handful of Justices, which explains why the Four Heroes made such an astounding impact. So what did FDR do? He packed the Court and within a short time, he'd changed everything. The Four Hero's voices could not be heard through the throngs of people who had begun to panic. Enter New Deal legislation!!! Cue the Vader music!
So even though a lonely single mother with only the government to take care of her pulls at all of our heartstrings, where would we be if we had just followed the Constitution and gotten back to free market and individual rights that USED TO protect us from tyrants? I can tell you this. We wouldn't be in the shit we're in now.
I'd like to end with a favorite quote from one of the Heroes, Justice Sutherland:
"Whether the legislation under review is wise or unwise is a matter with which we have nothing to do. Whether it is likely to work well or work ill presents a question entirely irrelevant to the issue. the only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether it is constitutional. If it is not, it's virtues, if it has any, cannot save it; if it is, it's faults cannot be invoked to accomplish it's destruction. If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they might as well be abandoned!"
What i know about government is only slightly more than the average person my age. For more detailed and pointed questions, i can only direct you to books, websites, or professors that i know. As my blog title goes, this is just my view from down here.
That doesn't mean that i'm not right. It just means that my picture is blurrier than others.
Back in the early 1900's the Supreme Court stuck like tar to the Constitution. The fabled Four Horsemen (HEROES in my book) Justice Butler, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Van Devanter dissented on legislation after legislation, using the Constitution to strike down tyranny as it tried to violate our Natural Rights. To them, the commerce clause had only to do with interstate commerce and commerce had to involve the movement of goods. PERIOD. Free market and due process actually meant something. Contracts were unbreakable by the government. Congress only had 18 enumerated powers. And the rights of the INDIVIDUAL were strictly upheld.
For example: The Lochner case of 1905. In Lochner (I must quote here because i couldn't put it in better terms if i spent all day trying) "The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a New York State law that limited the number of hours a baker could work. How dare a state in the land of opportunity try to steal the liberty of a laborer to work and a small businessperson to employ them? That is precisely what the New York legislature attempted. And this theft is precisely what goes on everyday in twenty-first century America. But the Lochner court, one hundred years ago, would have none of it!" - Judge Napolitano.
They also struck down a law that would require women to have a minimum wage, clearly violating the Contracts Clause. I can tell you that as a woman, and a proud one, i don't need anyone HOLDING MY DAMNED HAND! Here we were, struggling for decades to get the right to vote, and then suddenly the government wants to walk me to work, make sure i got there alright, and make sure i get paid properly? Once more, the Four Heroes dissented to defend our Constitutional right to have contracts and another New Deal policy was crushed.
I am no scholar, but i'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers never wanted big government to chaperon me to work!
Back on track before i loose myself.
Economic crises at the time began to call for immediate action. The Supreme Court only had a handful of Justices, which explains why the Four Heroes made such an astounding impact. So what did FDR do? He packed the Court and within a short time, he'd changed everything. The Four Hero's voices could not be heard through the throngs of people who had begun to panic. Enter New Deal legislation!!! Cue the Vader music!
So even though a lonely single mother with only the government to take care of her pulls at all of our heartstrings, where would we be if we had just followed the Constitution and gotten back to free market and individual rights that USED TO protect us from tyrants? I can tell you this. We wouldn't be in the shit we're in now.
I'd like to end with a favorite quote from one of the Heroes, Justice Sutherland:
"Whether the legislation under review is wise or unwise is a matter with which we have nothing to do. Whether it is likely to work well or work ill presents a question entirely irrelevant to the issue. the only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether it is constitutional. If it is not, it's virtues, if it has any, cannot save it; if it is, it's faults cannot be invoked to accomplish it's destruction. If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they might as well be abandoned!"
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
"So what are they spending money on?"
I get this question a lot. The honest answer is that it's hard to divide every bill that passes when an omnibus goes through. And the even more shocking truth?
Most Congressmen don't even read it.
But here is a small list of congressional pork that was found in the 2003 Omnibus Spending Bill taken from The Constitution in Exile
"1. Congress allotted $200,000 for an American Cotton Museum.(Why should people in New York pay for this museum in Alabama?)
2. Congress allotted $70,000 for the International Paper Industry Hall of Fame in Appleton, Wisconsin.
3. Congress allotted $150,000 for the Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program at the Lady B Ranch in California. (Does Hillary Clinton's 1992 Health Care Reform Act cover this?)
4. Congress allotted $1.5 million to transport cold water to Lank Onondaga from Lake Ontario. (Why on earth are we doing this?)
5. Congress Allocated $160,000 for seafood waste in Alaska.
6. Congress promised $75,000 for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. (Where is this in the Constitution?)
7. Congress gave $99,000 to train students in the motor sports industry at Patrick Henry Community College. (Is motor sporting a natural right?)
8. Congress voted $250,000 to build and renovate city pools in Banning, California. (The next time it's hot in your neighborhood, why don't you go to California for a swim to cool down? After all, you paid for this.)" -Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.
Uggg... Revolution?....Anyone??
Most Congressmen don't even read it.
But here is a small list of congressional pork that was found in the 2003 Omnibus Spending Bill taken from The Constitution in Exile
"1. Congress allotted $200,000 for an American Cotton Museum.(Why should people in New York pay for this museum in Alabama?)
2. Congress allotted $70,000 for the International Paper Industry Hall of Fame in Appleton, Wisconsin.
3. Congress allotted $150,000 for the Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program at the Lady B Ranch in California. (Does Hillary Clinton's 1992 Health Care Reform Act cover this?)
4. Congress allotted $1.5 million to transport cold water to Lank Onondaga from Lake Ontario. (Why on earth are we doing this?)
5. Congress Allocated $160,000 for seafood waste in Alaska.
6. Congress promised $75,000 for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. (Where is this in the Constitution?)
7. Congress gave $99,000 to train students in the motor sports industry at Patrick Henry Community College. (Is motor sporting a natural right?)
8. Congress voted $250,000 to build and renovate city pools in Banning, California. (The next time it's hot in your neighborhood, why don't you go to California for a swim to cool down? After all, you paid for this.)" -Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.
Uggg... Revolution?....Anyone??
Monday, May 3, 2010
Books! They's not just for dorks anymore!
I've got a little book list i'd like to share before i post the final installment of my Whiskey Tango Foxtrot series. I've blown through these books and i can't tell you how wonderful and insightful they are.
1. The Constitution in Exile
2. The Case Against the Fed
3. What has Government Done to Our Money
4. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
5. Lies my Teacher Told Me.
6. Where Keynes Went Wrong
7. Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View
These books are great, easy reads (even Legacy of Ashes which is as thick as a family Bible) and i've got to give it up to The Man, Mr. Scott, for recommending them. Most of these are really cheap to buy (especially Mises and Austrian Economics). So if you're a reader and want something to read while having a cold one after work, take these babies out for a run.
It doesn't hurt to learn a few things either.
1. The Constitution in Exile
2. The Case Against the Fed
3. What has Government Done to Our Money
4. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
5. Lies my Teacher Told Me.
6. Where Keynes Went Wrong
7. Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View
These books are great, easy reads (even Legacy of Ashes which is as thick as a family Bible) and i've got to give it up to The Man, Mr. Scott, for recommending them. Most of these are really cheap to buy (especially Mises and Austrian Economics). So if you're a reader and want something to read while having a cold one after work, take these babies out for a run.
It doesn't hurt to learn a few things either.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)