This should come as good news to the entertainment industry in face of current economic conditions. The article from the Live Science can be found here.
The scary thing the article points out is that "happy people reported watching an average of 19 hours of television per week"!
Just for a quick update on our current financial situation:
US
China
GDP
13.78
7.09
GDP real growth rate
2.00%
11.90%
Unemployment
4.60%
4.00%
Public Debt as a % of GDP
60.80%
18.40%
These figures are taken from the CIA World Factbook on 11/15/2008. These of course are not the most recent figures since the BLS has unemployment for the US currently at 6.5%. Also just a note, GDP is in trillions of dollars. This of course does not reflect the huge increase in debt that the US has taken on in the past few months.
Well today is day that all good Americans are suppose to go and vote. According to a survey of popular opinion it does not matter how you vote, just simply that, you do. Which doesn't make any since to me. If I wanted my candidate to win I would definitely not encourage others to vote who might vote against him. So much for my logic. I am starting to think that people really just enjoy voting. Gordon Tullock thinks that this may be the case.
While at my polling place today, I heard multiple times the phrase "good luck" called out as as people went to cast their vote. Good luck? It seems as if we are playing a game of chance – and I suppose we are. I am currently wearing my sticker that says "I voted for coffee". While the "for coffee" part had to be added, I think it is appropriate. I was actually considering not voting this year. Then I saw a Starbucks ad saying that they would give you a free coffee if you claimed you voted. This seemed like a good deal to me. So this morning I got up and voted. Currently I am sitting at my local Starbucks, sipping on my free coffee.
Some might say that I voted for the wrong reasons. Well, I voted only on the issues that I understood and cared about. I didn't simply vote for anyone because of the letter next to their name. Besides everyone takes voting too serious. I highly recommend this post by David Heleniak, called "Mock the Vote". I'll leave you with my favorite new quote:
You have better chances of dying in a car crash while driving to vote, than having your vote change the outcome.
If I told you that someone said that we were going to have a crisis if Obama was elected, you might think that I was a McCain supporter. However that comment came from Joe Biden. Apparently we are going to have a staged crisis to show what a great leader Obama is, if he is elected. Below are the actual quotes:
“Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy,” Biden told the crowd. “The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch, we’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
“He’s going to have to make some really tough - I don’t know what the decision’s going to be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s going to happen,” he said.
A generated crisis? What does he have in mind? Another 9/11? It seemed to work well last time. The Bush Administration was able to get laws passed that otherwise would not have and to boot was able to start a war. So if Obama wants to show his leadership abilities through a war, I would advise people to stay out of tall buildings for the time being.
Is anyone else concerned about the currently proposed bailout? Henry Paulson has proposed a $700 billion bailout of the financial institutions that are having trouble. President Bush, Ben Bernanke(Fed Chairman), Henry Paulson(Secretary of the Treasury) and Christopher Cox (SEC Chairman) are the ones who devised the bailout. As you are probably aware Bernanke has also been providing as much liquidity to the market as he deems reasonable. So we are not only increasing our money supply, we are taking on huge amounts of bad debt. This seems like two undesirable things to do and a really bad idea to be doing at the same time.
1. The Administration will work with Congress to pass legislation approving the Federal government's purchase of difficult–to-sell assets, such as troubled mortgages, from banks and other financial institutions.
2. The Treasury Department is acting to restore confidence in a key element of America's financial system – money market mutual funds.
3. The Federal Reserve is also taking steps to provide additional liquidity to money market mutual funds, which will help ease pressure on our financial markets.
4. The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued new rules temporarily suspending the practice of short selling on the stocks of financial institutions.
5. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress on measures to bring greater long-term transparency and reliability to the financial system.
The first item mentioned is what is currently being discussed as the $700 billion dollar bailout. Item 3 involves Bernanke printing more money from thin air. Item 4 is where Cox gets to be involved and interfere with the market, and stops the short selling on all "financial institutions". I put financial institutions in quotes because it doesn't mean what it use to. The Privacy Act of 1974 has been amended to have a different definition of financial institution. After H.R.2417 was passed the definition of "financial institution" now includes: a pawnbroker, a telegraph company, a business engaged in vehicle sales and also the United States Post Office. Hopefully the definition of "financial institution" will be limited to its normal definition in everyday conversation.
(If anyone is interested in learning more about the decline of our civil liberties and also background on the change of "financial institutions", you can listen to Judge Napolitano here)
Most people in the media are calling for more regulation claiming that this will get at the heart of the problem. Perhaps we should realize that regulation and government interference into the marketplace is the problem. Every time that the Fed pumps money into the market to provide liquidity this is a government interference in the market. Every time the government bailouts huge firms that have made poor decisions, this is government interference in the market. Every time that the SEC stops trading out of fear of what the market might do, this is an interference in the market.
So the progression towards Socialism continues in the United States. Perhaps it is time that we stop thinking of ourselves as a country who uses markets with limited government intervention and start thinking of ourselves as a socialist country that occasionally uses markets.
Tired of hearing about party unity from both the Republican and Democrat parties. Well if you would like to change the two party system that exists in the US, you should support OpenDebates.org. Make sure to visit the site and sign the petition if you find yourself in agreement with allowing more than just the republicans and democrats in the presidential debates.
Foreign Policy:The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region.We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East.We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia.We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy:We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation.We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons.We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government.We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt:We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt.The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar.We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve:Weseek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions.The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies.Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
There have been a number of people that have come out in support of the above articles, namely: Ron Paul (previous Republican Presidential candidate) Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party Presidential Nominee) Cynthia McKinney ( Green Party Presidential Nominee) Bob Barr ( Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee) Ralph Nader
Concerned about your identity in our current paranoid security camera infested America? With cameras on almost every street corner, it is almost impossible to go about your daily routine without being captured by numerous cameras. With the climate of fear that seems to be prevalent in America, the individual is going to have to take proactive steps to retain any sort of privacy when venturing out in public. The government always has their ever watchful eye, trying to catch people who are not following "their rules". You can't trust businesses to keep you information safe. So the individual must take action own their own. Below is video that shows how to defeat the effectiveness of infrared security cameras.
Drew Carey who is working with Reason magazine, has a new video out. For anyone out there who is not willing to admit that we live in a police state, this video might be of use.
A Primer on Logic While reading at Lewrockwell.com, I recently came across a great article from a fellow Coloradoan. A Primer on Logic, was written as a defense to some of Mark's earlier posts about drunk driving. Mark shares some of the email that he received, much of which was less than uplifting. If you find yourself trying to reason with people who are constantly making emotional appeals instead of arguments based on logic, then the article will be a breath of fresh air for you. This will hold true especially for anyone who has had to deal with a MADD mother.
Mexico's President is working with food manufacturers to freeze food prices on 150 food items. Does anyone else see a food shortage coming? I think that it will only be a matter of time before we start hearing about the food shortage problems in Mexico. This will likely lead to even further involvement of the Mexican government. I can hear it already " The government did not due enough by freezing the food prices, the should have lowered them and then froze them". So then the government will be called on for further interference in the market. Let the downward spiral begin...
Obama said he would give students a $4,000 tax credit to help pay tuition and fees in exchange for 100 hours of community service. The campaign said the program would cost $10 billion a year. From Yahoo News.
I sat in court about 2 months ago and was able to observe people trading out their fines for community service. Where I live, the defendants were able to trade out their fines at the rate of $10 per hour. So if your fine was $200 you could opt for 20 hours of community service or any combination between fines and labor that the judge would agree to. Now Bambam is proposing a rate of $40 per hour for the community service. I would venture to say that there are very few college students who are making more than $40 per hour. Which would make this program of great appeal to those who are not too proud to do community service work. The program sounds great at the surface. I mean I would love to be able to work for 2 weeks at 50 hours a week and pay for my schooling for the semester. Perhaps I could work for a whole month in the summer and pay for my tuition for the whole year. One of the problems with this plan is that community service is simply not worth $40 an hour. That is why it the program is estimated to cost $10 billion per year. According to the article:
Barack Obama graduated from Columbia University Michelle Obama received her undergraduate degree from Princeton. Both earned law degrees from Harvard.
Bambam also mentions that both his wife and him had $60,000 of debt each when they got married. Some people pause here and throw a fit. As I have heard a professor of mine proclaim "It is a crime that college students graduate with so much debt". Of course people who are this feeble minded don't understand trade-offs. Bambam and his wife made a combined amount of $4.2 million last year. It seems that they understand the idea of trade-offs. Both of them went to prestigious schools for both their undergraduate and their law degrees. They accumulated debt as they were acquiring skills which they deemed would be of future value greater than that of the debt that they would owe. It seems that both were correct with their judgment and they are benefiting today from a choice they made years ago. This is a trade-off. You can forgo consumption today so that you can consume more in the future or you can consume more today and forgo consumption in the future. This is the key idea of time value of money. I am doing the same thing Bambam did. I have gone into debt in order to finance my college education with hopes of receiving a financial compensation for it in the future. There is nothing wrong with this. This is simply the choice that an individual makes about his future. There is no need for society to pay for the college education of these individuals any more than they already do. On the surface it sounds great that we are going to help make college more affordable for students. However, the question that we should all be asking is; where is the money going to come from?
After reading an interview with Hillary Clinton on ABC news, I was worried. I knew that there were many things that I would not agree with Sen. Clinton on, but it is much worse than I thought. George Stephanopoulos had a few questions that he wouldn't allow her to squirm out of. Here is a section from the interview:
CLINTON: Well, No. 1, my proposal is very different from Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain has said take off the gas tax, don't pay for it, throw us further into deficit and debt. That is not what I've proposed. What I've proposed is that the oil companies pay the gas tax instead of consumers and drivers this summer.
Now, why am I proposing this? Well, No. 1, I am absolutely convinced that these record profits of the oil companies are a result of a number of factors beyond supply and demand. I think there has been market manipulation. In fact, Exxon Mobil official testifying under oath before the House of Representatives committee said that if it were just market factors, then the price of oil would be like $50 or $55 a barrel.
We know that there's market manipulation going on. So I would launch an investigation if I were president right now by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. I would also quit buying oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We're 97 percent full. We don't need to keep buying it at these prices, and I would release some.
I would begin to go directly at OPEC. I think it's been 25 years where we've, you know, largely just been at the mercy of the OPEC countries.
But this gas tax issue to me is very real, because I am meeting people across Indiana and North Carolina who drive for a living, who commute long distances, who would save money if the oil companies paid this $8 billion this summer, instead of it coming out of the pockets of consumers.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Economists say that's not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies. They're not going to actually lower their prices. And the two top leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economist in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing.
Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?
CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I think we've been for the last seven years seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans. From the moment I started this campaign, I've said that I am absolutely determined that we're going to reverse the trends that have been going on in our government and in our political system, because what I have seen is that the rich have gotten richer. A vast majority -- I think something like 90 percent -- of the wealth gains over the last seven years have gone to the top 10 percent of wage earners in America.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?
CLINTON: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.
Now, look, I have long-term plans too. I mean, it's a misnomer to say this is all that I'm doing. It's not. I have a comprehensive long-term energy plan that would go right at dependence on foreign oil. We've got to undermine this incredible addiction that we have. We use more foreign oil today than we did on 9/11. That is a disaster for America.
Also that we've got to move toward more alternative and renewable fuels, and get out gas mileage up. You know, increase those standards.
The interview goes on and there is even more to be concerned with. However, let's just take a second to look at the section above. Sen. Clinton says:
"Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively."
Let's start with the comment about her not throwing her lot in with economists. There is usually a misguided or delusional economist behind most bad policy. The fact that she cannot name one who agrees with her plan is bothersome. Sen. Clinton also seems to have some disdain for economists in general. It seems as though she does not believe that their field of study is valid. Since it is the President who appoints the board of directors for the Fed, it scares me to think of who she might appoint. Of course the board of directors of the Fed, have 14 year terms that are staggered, so only a couple will be up for replacement if Hillary is elected for 4 years.
Now to the another thing that bothers me. Sen. Clinton talking about the Presidents role in interfering with the market, "if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency". Since President George W. Bush is who Sen. Clinton is referring to, be very afraid. The abuse and expanse of the power of the Presidential office is one of the things that really offends me about President Bush. To say that President Bush has not used all the tools of the presidency, is an understatement. Bush has used all the tools of his office and many that do not belong to him. The expanse of power the office of the president has seen over the last 7 years is really remarkable. Why the American people are not rioting is the streets is a question that should probably be asked. President Bush has been awarded an Honorary Law Degree from Yale. They must be impressed at his ability to overstep the bounds of his presidency and not have any real action taken by Congress against him.
Another thing that I wonder about, if we impose a 18.4 cent per gallon tax on the oil companies, do we really expect that to lower the price of gas. Is there any reason why the oil companies would not simply raise the price 18.4 cent per gallon to make up for this new expense?
Sen. Clinton has said that she wants to take away the profits from big oil. Don't take my word for it, just watch the video below.
Well it's good to know that Sen. Clinton takes a Laissez-Faire approach to the market...
There is a descent clip of Glen Beck, talking to the president of Exxon Mobil. Explaining that he enjoys it when companies are making money. I agree with Glen on this matter, I like to see companies that are successful. I am tired of hearing about how the big corporations can raise their prices and consumers are helpless to do anything. There is a reason that Wal-Mart has 5000 stores in the United States, people shop there. I personally don't agree with some of the business practices that Wal-Mart employs, so I simply don't shop there. I value paying higher prices somewhere else than supporting Wal-Mart. This is a a personal choice that I have made. Wal-Mart is often criticized for running smaller businesses out of business. Perhaps we should be thanking them instead for removing the inefficient firms from the market. Like I said, I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I don't support some of their business practices, not to mention that they only sale inferior goods. However the fact that they have been extremely successful says that someone is shopping there. In fact with 5000 stores a lot of people are shopping and also working there. Since Wal-Mart makes it money– like every other firm–by serving its customers needs, perhaps we should take a second to think about why we dislike Wal-Mart.
Thanks to the author of Whatever it is, I'm against it, for pointing out the interview with Sen. Clinton. This is a blog worth checking out if you enjoy the stupidity that our President regularly indulges in.
Ever wonder exactly what sites are blocked by the Great Firewall of China? The website that you are currently reading has not yet been blocked. This can only mean that 1) there are not enough visitors to this site and 2) I am not writing enough inflammatory posts.
Surprisingly enough , some sites that promote Liberty were not blocked. Such as: www.mises.org www.econlib.org www.cato.org
Above is a link to a blog from the telegraph that I was reading. There are enough errors in this that I think it is worth addressing. The first problem is this statement, "No president has much influence over the course of the economy". This should read that the President should not have much influence over the economy. It would be alright if he was expressing an opinion, but stating that as a fact is simply incorrect. The President recently created a stimulus package worth $145 billion dollars to give to tax payers. This seems like something worth noting. How about the role of the President being Commander and Chief of the Military? Are there no economic consequences associated with waging war? The fact that the United States continues to occupy Iraq and many other countries around the world has a huge economic impact on America. To ignore this would be foolish. How much money has the United States spent on the effort in Iraq?
Well it is hard to get a firm figure since this number is always increasing, but I think that you get the idea. The main point of the article was talking about the large impact America has on other countries because of our interventionist foreign policy. The answer to this is not to let people of other countries vote in America's elections, but to change the foreign policy of American so that we are not involved in everyone else's affairs.
Recently I received an email inviting me to join a Yahoo Group called Moral_Conservatives. It seemed like it might be of interest, so I went ahead and joined. I was invited by the group owner who goes by the name of Cowboy.
Here is the description of the group:
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Moral Conservatism is a discussion/activist group that places an emphasis on defending our Judeo-Christian values (including, but not limited to: sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage, anti-ACLU) against secular "progressive" forces.
Prospective members of all faiths are welcome here. And we welcome all conservatives, but the focus here is on social issues.
Also from the initial email I received:
Our group is primarily Republican, but 100% conservative. That doesn't mean that we're part of the kool aid drinking crowd. We put principle above personality and encourage debate. If you're a CONSERVATIVE who thinks for yourself, we'd be happy to have you as a member of our group.
So I joined and started to browse this group. Since I am an avid Ron Paul supporter, I decided to see what people on this group thought about my candidate.
One of the first posts that I found was by Cowboy, the group owner. He was talking about Wayne Allyn Root when some of his thoughts about Ron Paul slipped out. Talking about the Iraq war cowboy said "at least he's not a nutjob on that issue like Ron Paul is."
So right off the bat I am feeling not quite as welcome since the moderator thinks my candidate is a nut job.
Later in the post Cowboy, had this to say:
See, I have a philosophical difference with Libertarians. I support an aggressive foreign policy. I am ok with the Patriot Act. And I certainly don't think it's ok to kill the pre-born just because the state authorizes it and not the federal government. And marriage has been defined for tens of thousands of years as a sacred union between one man and one woman. It's the basic building block of our society. What business does any state government have in redefining it?
I have two thoughts for Cowboy. One, if you support such an "aggressive foreign policy", why do you have a so called conservative group. You should start the "Pro-War Imperialist for America" group. I think that if we are going to have an imperialist foreign policy that we should just start colonizing. I mean it would not be that big of a step. We already have military bases in many countries, we elect their leaders for them, the only thing we need to do is to tax them for this service.
Point two, why are you allowing government to define marriage? Until the Ministry of Truth takes over, the government can call marriage whatever it wants to, this will not change what marriage is. Marriage is a private institution between a man, a woman and God. There is no room for the role of the state in marriage. The state is trying to play the role of God with marriage. This is why people obtain a marriage license. A license is permission to do something that is otherwise not legal. So by applying for a marriage license you are asking the permission of the state to do something that would not be legal otherwise. The description of the yahoo group starts out with "God Bless America". How do you think God feels about people asking permission of the state to get married, when he is the One who ordained marriage?
David Boaz from the Cato Institute has a good article about privatizing marriage which can be found here. He talks about the role that the government has played in marriage over the years and also a little background on why it came about.
I have a feeling that I will not be a member of this group for long. I think that I have diametrically opposed fundamental beliefs that may make my participation unwelcome. If anyone thinks that they would fit well in this group they can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Moral_Conservatism/.
I just read a Yahoo News headline that read: "McCain says he can best handle crisises". Which makes me think one thing–what are they planning next? The last big crisis occurred in Autumn of 2001 and paved the way for legislation that violated the constitution and ignored the civil liberties of Americans. So when McCain says that he is best able to handle a crisis, I just wonder what it is that he has planned.
In case there are some people who want to go to caucus but are not sure how to. First, you will need to be registered if you want to participate in the Republican caucus. You can click on link 1 and see if you are an active registered republican. Then click on link 2 and you will be able to find the location for the caucus for your precinct. It is recommended that you show up to your caucus location at least 30 minutes before the listed time. It is my understanding that the time listed is when the doors close, so plan accordingly.
"Perhaps your grip on reality is not quite as firm as you might have hoped" - Todd Connelly
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Words are chameleons, which reflect the color of their environment.
-Learned Hand, jurist (1872-1961)
What does all of this do to the best minds among the students? Most of them endure their college years with the teeth-clenched determination of serving out a jail sentence. The psychological scars they acquire in the process are incalculable. But they struggle as best they can to preserve their capacity to think, sensing dimly that the essence of the torture is an assault on their mind. And what they feel toward their school ranges from mistrust to resentment to contempt to hatred – intertwined with a sense of exhaustion and excruciating boredom.
