Forecast of doom?

Here in 16 seconds I list all the bad things that might happen in the next four years.

 

Streaming Archive

Editorial - Rand Paul and the Limits of Libertarianism - NYTimes.com

Or, as the New York Times tells us, “the importance of enlightened government.”

Rand Paul’s comments are a great chance to expose the propaganda of “the conventional wisdom.” The CW is this unstated cannon of general principles that just about everyone in the press lives, frames their world, and is so indoctrinated by, they can’t even see their own bias. Like the fish that’s covered in water its whole life, “the fish doesn’t know it’s wet.”

And this editorial hits them all. Or at least the big ones. Lets look at them; one at a time!

Where are these philosopher kings of an enlightened government? How do we find these people? Even if they existed, how would they be elected? If mankind is greedy and evil, then why would you want to put other greedy and evil men over your life to rule it?

How was it possible for “neighborhood associations” to discriminate based on race? Who upheld those contracts as valid? The courts, a part of the government. Based on laws.

Who fixed the “lunch counters” that refused to seat blacks? Was it the government or public shunning? The NYT editorial laughs at you if you thought “public shunning.” Did you notice that? But guess what; read history, it was public shunning, and not any court orders that ended the now famous Woolworths lunch counter discrimination. (This was in the ‘50’s and the “civil rights act of 1964” was almost a decade later.) But the government takes credit for “giving you civil rights!”

How has “liberty” been shown to be ineffective at promoting a “civil” society? (Set aside for a minute if being “civil” is more important than being “free.”) What do they mean the “freedom of a few to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups…?” Not in a free market! Only in a powerful, top-down government can “a few” control “many.” In a free market, there’s very little a few persons can do.

The next example -- we should be so thankful the government ended slavery and something they call “Jim Crow.” (Usually they are called “Jim Crow Laws” but that would have been too obvious.) Let me get this straight. We should be thankful that the government that enabled slavery saw fit to stop enslaving us? And if the government that enforced separatist, “Jim Crow” laws has seen fit to stop doing that, we should be grateful?

Slavery could never have existed but for government support. Neither could “Jim Crow” laws. Or separate (but equal) schools, or even water fountains, which were chiefly in government buildings. I’ve read reports of frontier towns in Kansas territory that educated all their children “white” and “negro” in a one room school house. But the state officials commanded them to build two separate schools! The townsfolk didn’t see any need and thought the school was perfectly fine. (History Channel) But that was the point, the state couldn’t allow whites to “accept” negro children in their school! What would that lead to? Equality and everyone just “getting along?”

Who is the editor to say “neither (slavery nor Jim Crow) would be eliminated by a free market?” These were both created by the government, of course the free market would have ended both sooner than they were but for government action. (See Milton Friedman).

Next are the two big doozies. The two big lies we’ve been taught by the government schools since we were children. And in the press all the time, and most of us believe:

1. The government rescued the economy from the Great Depression! Oh god does anyone still believe this? I know we’ve heard this our whole lives, but there’s a large body of scholarship that says exactly the opposite. The “Great Depression” was a blip or hiccup in the economy until both Hoover and FDR “tried to fix” it. Everything they did made things worse. Hoover made it worse, he was voted out of office and FDR came in and did more of what Hoover was doing, making things even worse than they were. The result was more than a decade of poverty.

2. The government promoted safety and equality in the workplace. John Stossel goes over this better than I can. The result of free enterprise was that the workplace was getting safer and safer. When the government finally stepped in and formed “OSHA” the safety record continued about the same as it was before (getting better all the time). But the government stepped in front of the parade and took credit for the “improved workplace safety.” As is common. (See Stossel.)

So far as promoting equality? See the congressional hearing in the 1930’s regarding the new laws to protect and enable the labor union movement. The main reason the unions were asking for special protection from the government was to protect the white workers from competition from “negro labor.” And we should be “thankful” that the government grants us equality?

Editorial - Rand Paul and the Limits of Libertarianism - NYTimes.com

City adds $1000 to cost of housing.

Background: Two meetings ago I questioned a proposal to adopt what the city calls “building standards.”  What that means is new mandates about how homes (and businesses) are to be built.  The stated goal is “energy efficiency.”  Absent from any of the documents was any estimate of how much these new rules would add to the cost of a home.

Well a few weeks later there was a “public hearing” on the matter.  Odd, because the measure had already been approved in the first reading.  The 2nd reading and passage and “public hearing” were at the same time.  In other words, it didn’t matter much what “the public” thought about the idea, the “hearing” was a mere formality. 

Well here were things take a strange turn.  After the public hearing, the “Building Guy” says he’s got some information for me.  For me?  Why yes.  And sure enough they actually attempted to find an answer to question I asked at the earlier meeting.

First, note that in the email I got a promotion to individual from my  previous rank of no one. 

So in response to the query, the chief guy from the state pulled a figure out of his ass of estimated from $590 to $1,095 in additional costs and further guessed calculated that over the lifetime of the house it could save as much as $5,157.  I asked how long this “life of the house” was.  No one knew.  But it wasn’t 20 years. (“No, longer.”)  Over the next hundred years?  “Hm, not sure if that long.”  So according to government figures you’ll enjoy these savings sometime between the next 20 to 100 years.

Seems like a lowball figure to me on the costs.  Maybe one of you in the building trades can say.  The estimate has absolutely no supporting calculations other than “what the guy at the state said.”  And the savings is based on an assumption that the wonder-house will use 15% less energy.

My guess is that the estimate doesn’t include compliance costs.  Those are the costs of following the code.  The code is in three large volumes and specifies everything from where to bang in nails to tables and graphs to figure out how much insulation you need.  Compliance costs are what it costs in your time to read and understand these books, and to modify your architectural plans, and everything else associated with actually following the code.  I wonder if the state’s estimate is simply the costs of the added insulation, the more efficient lighting fixtures, etc.  Which may be only a fraction of the total.

I was about to move this issue off my radar screen when I noticed one other thing.  On the paper someone scribbled to figure the “percentage increase” in costs.  It has two math errors.  Where it says =3.52% that should be 0.352%.  It’s off by a factor of ten.  Sure easy enough mistake, I’ve made that one a few times.  But now we’re left wondering.  The initial estimate at the first meeting was given at 1 to 2 percent.  Just 1 percent is $1,677.  So who knows, are the percentages correct and the real figure is ten times more?  ($5,900 to $10,950 ? )  Probably not, but one never knows. 

By the way, if all they did was come up with three phonebook sized books on “how to build a house that uses 15 % less energy” why not just publish that and let builders build that if they wanted to?  What customer wouldn’t want a house that costs less to heat and cool?  So why is the government involved at all? 

NUMMI

For a fascinating look at the NUMMI plant be sure to tune into This American Life today. If you're in the Stockton-Modesto area, it can be heard on 91.3 FM (KUOP, Capital Public Radio) at 6 pm. It's a whole hour.  I think every American and in particular, every Californian should hear the story. It's both inspiring and damning; about how the workers and leadership failed, then succeeded, and failed.   But mostly failed.

Featured Article - WSJ.com

This is one of the last interviews with Milton and Rose Friedman together.  Milton died in 06 and Rose just last year.     

That last part, about the war of aggression I found interesting.  And I wonder if he’d lived the last few years, he would have even further realized the futility of “winning.”

Also he settles the issues with Keynes, and with why the deficits were “under control” in the ‘90s (it wasn’t Clinton!) and what really killed the Republican party. 

Featured Article - WSJ.com

It's OK to Walk Away From Your Home - WSJ.com

Is he right?  This from the Wall Street Journal:

Millions of Americans are now deeply underwater on their mortgage. If you're among them, you need to stop living in a dream world and give serious thought to walking away from the debt.

No, you shouldn't feel bad about it, and you shouldn't feel guilty. The lenders would do the same to you—in a heartbeat. You need to put yourself and your family's finances first.

ROI: When It's OK to Walk Away From Your Home - WSJ.com

Hayek vs. Keynes Rap

I wasn't expecting this! A "rap" about economics. And it for the most part accurately sums up a century of argument. Does the government need to control the economy as Keynes thought, or is that a "fatal conceit" as Hayek thought?

I'll give you one hint though, for the last half century or so, America has been dominated by Keynesian thought (under both Republican and Democratic rule). The "bailouts," the TARP, the "stimulus" are all Keynes ideas. But for brief periods In the past, the economy has flourished under Hayekian free market ideas.

talking points?

I said Christina Romer "knew better" this morning at 7:30 am or so. The comment was picked up by C-SPAN and broadcast. At 12:38 pm Rush Limbaugh said the same thing. Great minds think alike? Maybe. Or maybe he's watching Washington Journal, and reading me. Not that that's a bad thing, I put the comments out there in to the public for anyone to use.

It's just that the next time someone who doesn't know me tells me I "take my talking points directly from Rush Limbaugh" I can tell them, "no, Rush Limbaugh takes his talking points from me!" heheheh

Plunder!: How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation - Book TV

Don’t miss this talk about government unions.  The author is from California.  Note how many things sound familiar: from issuing edicts on Friday afternoon and voting then into law on Tuesday night to how we are getting less and less government “services” for more and more taxes we pay.  And how the union’s plan is to simply keep raising taxes – forever.   From the website:

Steven Greenhut takes a critical look at government workers and the unions that represent them.  Mr. Greenhut argues that government employees, who receive salaries, benefits, and a level of job security that far outpace workers in the private sector, have become a huge drain on state and federal coffers.  He spoke at Barnes & Noble Booksellers in Orange, California. 

Economics - Plunder!: How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation - Book TV

Click on the “watch” link on the right side of the page to view the video of the presentation.  It’s about an hour.

Plunder! Dissects Government Unions

This might help the Manteca Bulletin readers sort things out. 

Do policemen die early?  Is being a cop a “dangerous job?”  Do government unions “protect the worker?”  I suggest the answers are no, not really, and no!  You can read why in this well researched article.

Plunder! Dissects Government Unions by John Seiler

Thanksgiving in Manteca

 
Man, Manteca, Calif. Nov 2009.

Schools are bad for your kids…

I thought this was an interesting (if thorough) read into the problems of the government schools.

How Did We Get Into This Mess? by James Ostrowski

Idiocy in Lodi

What’s wrong with these two stories?

Redevelopment to top Lodi agenda in June

Lodi moves to cap lunch wagons

It seems to me that on the one hand, they are saying the city is poor and blighted and they need to borrow tons of money to “re-develop” the city.  And in the 2nd story, they are “cracking down” on hard working people who are making jobs for themselves, providing a service, feeding their families with their own initiative, etc.

Do you need any better illustration of what’s wrong with the central valley and the People’s Republic of California?

Manteca Bulletin - Free car wash for veterans Wednesday

As far as I’m concerned, Quicki-Kleen can keep their free car wash for veterans. I see no reason to participate in any public relations stunt that brings credit to the people who orchestrated the bullying of a fellow citizen who wanted to open up a competing car wash.

The owner of Quicki-Kleen was listed among those who led the “cause” of blocking a new car wash from opening in the 300 block of Yosemite Ave a few months ago.

What does this have to do with veterans you ask?

Well what veterans fought for was freedom. That means the freedom to do business back at home. Anyone who would try to block a competitor using socialistic arguments and questionable “petitions drives” is nothing more than a freedom hating bully. All the free car washes in the world won’t make up for that.

Manteca Bulletin - Free car wash for veterans Wednesday

More on cable customers taxed

Two other things I forgot.

Regarding the cable TV tax, the editor claims “There is little doubt the revenue is needed.” Little doubt? “Needed” by whom? For what? There are a lot of us who don’t believe the tremendous growth of government over the years has been a good or “needed” thing.

Next, he says “No one in Manteca at this time should have the stomach to push for new taxes. In time, though, the need will come.”

Why will the need come to raise new taxes? What is going to happen that will cause such a need?

Let me dispel two myths of why people think “new taxes” are “needed.” What about growth of the population? Does that cause the need for “new taxes?” NO! If there are more people, more houses, more businesses, then the government collects more taxes from the new people, houses, etc., in exactly the proportion of the growth.

If the population of Manteca goes from 60,000 to 120,000 there will theoretically be no need for “new taxes!” Why? Because there are twice as many people using government “services” and there will be twice as much tax collected. It all evens out.

Of course this never stops the government propaganda machine from telling us a new tax “is needed” because of “the growth in the population,” but that’s just the way it is.

The other excuse sometimes used is “inflation.” We need to raise taxes because “inflation” has made everything cost more. Sounds half-logical until you think about it. If a loaf of bread costs $1 today they collect x taxes. If the price of a loaf of bread goes to $2, then they collect 2x taxes. In other words, if the cost of everything doubles, then the taxes collected doubles. Once again, everything “evens out.”

No, the real question was raised by the author of A Monetary History of the United States; namely, why were taxes more or less stable at about 7 percent of GDP for the first 150 years of the nation, and then suddenly started skyrocketing in the later part of the 20th century. What was so “needed?” And why is the growth in the cost of government so “inevitable?”

Manteca Bulletin - Cable customers ‘taxed’ by Manteca, satellite users aren’t

Manteca Bulletin - Cable customers ‘taxed’ by Manteca, satellite users aren’t

A couple of comments in this editorial caught my eye.

Nothing illustrates how we underestimate the huge burden of taxation and regulation than the example of the cable TV provider in town (Comcast) and the proliferation of satellite TV.

Sure, the tax is just a few dollars per person. But it adds up when there are thousands of customers! And what about the regulation? We don’t usually think about regulation costing anything, but it’s not cheap to get city permits, to be authorized as the franchise, comply with all the rules and such.

I don’t have to list the costs. The reason is evident: The taxes and regulations are so burdensome that it was less costly to launch a complex scientific device into geo-stationary orbit above the Earth than to pay the taxes and deal with the regulatory hurdles governments put between them and their customers! Not to mention the costs of the receivers in each home capable of decoding signals from outer space.

And the editor bemoans how “unfair” it is that the genius innovators at the satellite TV company “don’t have to pay the cable tax.” Duh! They invented a way to distribute their content without cables. No cables, no tax.

Manteca Bulletin - Cable customers ‘taxed’ by Manteca, satellite users aren’t

p.s. The first person who suggests that the taxation was good because it spurred on innovation will get 20 lashes with the Milton Friedman noodle.

City Manager's Blog: More Folks Unhappy about Government

More straight talk from the city manager, and the Cato Institute.

City Manager's Blog: More Folks Unhappy about Government

Pointless bickering tests endurance

Amid the heat and mental pressure of a council chamber packed with angry policemen, a woman fainted, briefly causing a break in the pointless, childish, hyperbolic emotional “debate” over pay adjustments for city workers.

I guess technically this was before the pointless debate, as the meeting was still an agenda item at the time, a plan to upgrade the public works garage.  This presentation was so searing-ly boring that it’s a wonder someone doesn’t drop every meeting. 

(The young woman had, it appeared, simply fainted and walked out with assistance.  It was very warm in there, and it was packed with people.)

Below, Manteca citizen does a pretty respectable Norma Rae

Straight talk from City Manager

The Manteca City Manager has some interesting and straight talking Comments on a blog.  Of course, he's getting the usual flak from the usual suspects but I agree with his economic analysis. (And then some!)

It's back!

I thought the street vendor issue was settled in Oct 2007 at this public meeting. Those who spoke about the issue were strongly in support of the "street vendors" and favored minimal licensing or interference with them.

This week the issue comes up again in Lathrop. The "first reading" was passed without much fanfare a few weeks ago.

All the same burdensome regulations rejected two years ago are back like the thing in a horror movie that you think you killed but it keeps coming at you.