Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Despite Paul Krugman’s assurances that there is no such thing as inflation, despite Christina Roemer’s predictions that a V-shaped recovery is not that hard to believe, and despite Barack Obama’s insistence that there are “green shoots” in the economy, I have long maintained that our economy is in big trouble if Spend Big policies continue unchecked.
When conservative congressional leaders talk about how runaway spending will damage the economy, lefties across the country roll their eyes. However, ignoring the gravity of the situation doesn’t make the truth any less of a reality. If you are one who can’t bring yourself to listen to an amateur conservative blogger, or a select few of the congressional conservative representatives, maybe you’ll be willing to hear it from a Democrat.
I came across an article by Dr. Charles Wheelan, a.k.a. the Naked Economist. I’ve been a long time reader of his; his articles often grace the pages of Yahoo! Finance. Though I’ve had my disputes, I’ve always appreciated his irreverent approach toward economics. Dr. Wheelan is not just a finance writer; he recently ran to replace Rahm Emanuel’s seat in Congress...and lost. Now, don’t take this post as an endorsement of Wheelan’s political views, I haven’t looked into them. I simply felt like his article was making sense, although I'm sure his ideas of raising taxes drastically differ from my own. So, without further ado, here is some common sense from one of the Democrats’ own.
“We need to stop bickering about who got us here. Was it the Bush tax cuts (yes) or the Obama stimulus (yes) or profligate Congressional spending (yes) or voters who continually reward pork more than parsimony (yes)? But analyzing just overcomplicates things. We are deeply in debt because we have routinely spent more than we collect in taxes. That's just a mathematical reality that has become needlessly confounded with politics.”
I’ve been trying to make this point since February! Wheelan points out that it is ridiculous for either side to bicker whose fault our deficit’s woes belong to (it's Obama's if you were wondering ;). It is a simple fact that we are here and we need to do something about it- a fact that hasn’t sunk in with the Obama administration’s agenda of “Spend Big.”
“Chinese officials aren't worried about bankruptcy because the U.S. has an easier and more insidious option -- we can print our way out of the problem. Our debt is denominated in dollars, and the U.S. government has the authority to print those dollars. We could take a page from the Zimbabwe policy manual and just print money to pay our bills -- thereby debasing the currency, creating inflation, and devaluing the real value of what we owe.
Is that a sensible solution? No, as it imposes the costs of inflation on all of us. I don't know anyone eager to revisit the 1970s (in terms of economic performance or fashion).”
I might add that printing money is Obama’s solution at the moment. Wheelan points out that there are very real repercussions to Obama’s twelve trillion dollar budget. Namely, 1970s-style inflation (which I’ll remind you Paul Krugman thinks is a myth).
“The solution to all this is straightforward: Spend less than we take in, and use the surplus to pay down debt. At the risk of lapsing into economics jargon, yes, this is going to suck. Think about it: Americans don't like their current tax bills -- which aren't even high enough to pay for our current spending, let alone the bills we've run up from the past. In the future, we will have to pay more and get less.
But we've done it before. We paid off the debt accumulated during World War II. In fact, the ensuing decades saw some of the most impressive gains in wealth and productivity in American history. But it will require a radical change from what we're doing now…
…Will that dampen economic growth in the short run? Yes. Will it jeopardize important social programs? Yes. Will it compromise our ability to make important public investments? Yes. Does it limit what we can spend on healthcare reform? Yes.”
I’d like to some up Wheelan’s conclusion by addressing what the Obama administration should have done day one in office. Enact a stimulus plan with the biggest bang for the smallest cost. Then go line by line, like was promised by Obama and cut. Instead, we enacted a liberal wish list of programs, hoping the sheer magnitude would shock the economy back to life. We got pay-go promises twice, so long as it doesn't apply to executive or congressional spending. This attitude sending global investors away in droves. We bet big on bad odds; it's not too late to call off the bet.
Wheelan wasn’t the only Democrat seriously talking fiscal reality today. Roger Altman and former deputy secretary to Clinton had this to say today in the Wall Street Journal:
“Yes, the President's Council of Economic Advisors is still forecasting a traditional cyclical recovery -- i.e., real growth of 3.2% next year and 4% in 2011. But the latest data suggests that we're on a much slower path. Probably along the lines of the most recent Goldman Sachs and International Monetary Fund forecasts, whose growth rates average about 2% for 2010-2011…
…The problem is the deficit's sheer size, which goes way beyond potential savings from cuts in discretionary spending or defense. It's entirely possible that Medicare and Social Security will already have been addressed, and thus taken off the table. In short we'll have to raise taxes….
… We all know the recent and bitter history of tax struggles in Washington, let alone Mr. Obama's pledge to exempt those earning less than $250,000 from higher income taxes. This suggests that, possibly next year, Congress will seriously consider a value-added tax (VAT). A bipartisan deficit reduction commission, structured like the one on Social Security headed by Alan Greenspan in 1982, may be necessary to create sufficient support for a VAT or other new taxes…"
Tea Party naysayers I hope you are reading! All those crazy hicks protesting taxes, how silly did you think they were when they were really getting $13/month from Obama? Perhaps those bitter clingers saw something you yourself were blind to see.
I’ve posted the graph above in a previous post to show the price tag on Obama’s Spend and Tax policies. The littlest bar is Obama’s proposed tax on the rich. There are many that believe Barack Obama is the Messiah; however, I seriously doubt he’ll be able to work a Loaves and Fishes miracle on his puny tax revenue model. You see, there is a bar that is missing from the graph and it is the future legislation of Barak Obama to make tax revenues as big and gaudy as the gigantic spending bar. Obama’s budget is $4 trillion and we are getting $2 trillion in tax revenues. Logically, to meet Obama’s whims we need to double taxes. I mean double all taxes…double everyone’s income taxes; everyone’s gas taxes; everyone’s social security taxes; everyone’s medicaide/medicare taxes; everyone’s corporate taxes; everyone’s excise taxes.
The only thing missing from the mouths of Wheelan and Altman is yet another startling but true reality. The only thing going for Barack Obama’s economy for the last few months is perception- confidence from the consumers and investors that the economy would be turning around. According to new numbers, consumer confidence has dropped unexpectedly. The last hinge of Obama’s “green shoots” is breaking.
So, for those of you still following the cap and trade, government health care Obama parade- my only words are: the clock is ticking.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
I wanted to follow up on my previous post on the global warming debate regarding CO2 and solar activity. Since my post was fairly long I've shortened it down to a few points. Also, Andrew33 of KOOK's Manifesto and an excellent source of global warming knowledge provided several enlightening comments that I wanted to add to the post.
I strongly believe that global warming models based on solar activity will prevail over the man-made CO2 models, because it only takes a little common sense to prove a strong cause-effect relationship. If the sun were to extinguish tomorrow, what would the temperature of the earth be? How much heat will carbon dioxide and man generate once the sun is out of the equation?
The very term man-made global warming is a joke since man does not create any heat in the model. The cause and effect chain for man-made global warming goes like this: man makes carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide traps heat causing a .2 degree Celsius increase in temperatures over the last 50 years, which is causing water to evaporate more than usual adding another .4 degree Celsius increase over the last 50 years. The big hole in this chain reaction is that the sun is nowhere in their equation and yet it is essential for global warming to exist. That's certainly the case on Mars, where global temperatures have also been increasing.
The global warming nuts are well aware of their failing "scientific" models. When asked to comment on the sun's recent lull in solar activity and how it will effect global warming models, climatologist Mike Lockwood has this to say:
"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."
This quote is an excellent example of how broken man-made global warming science has become. Instead of making a valid arguement, Lockwood resorts to comparing apples to oranges. It’s like saying, “the new F-somenumber is not faster than the new GM Greenster because the new jet has increased its top speed over the F-22 by only 1% and the Greenster beat out the top speed of a Prius by 40%." The sun is thousands of times bigger than the earth and a small change is significant. On the other hand, CO2 is .001% of the earth’s atmosphere. It requires very, very large changes to affect anything, if at all.
Andrew33 had this to say on man-made global warming:
While on the subject of "green", "green jobs", geenhouse gasses etc. I look at it like this: "Green" is the new "Red" as in communism. The color for communism was red mainly from the Russians but it has been repackaged in a nice friendly "green" wrapper to sell to Americans. The "star and sickle" don't sell well here in the States so to sell Government jobs they get called "Green" jobs now. Green sounds much nicer and less controlling than either "Government" or "red." Here's a little more "Green 101." The fact is any Carbon Dioxide emitted by a smokestack or a tailpipe sinks to and into the ground like a rock in the water because Carbon Dioxide is far heavier than air. Air is a nearly constant solution of CO2, O2 and other trace elements similar to salt water. CO2 doesn't pile up in the atmosphere because of the oxygen and other trace gasses that are far lighter than CO2. That is Global Warming hoax #1 plain and simple. Water is in the air just like CO2. Yet when there is too much water in the air, it forms clouds. When the clouds get thick enough, and the water becomes heavy enough it falls as rain, but they don't teach that in science class anymore. That is the reality behind "Green." Funny thing is when I ask those who support Global Warming about this they responded with silence."
You can prove this effect by filling a beaker with pure CO2 and corking it. Then light several candles on a table. Uncork, then turn upside down the CO2 beaker 2-3 ft directly above the candles. You will see the candles go out as the excess CO2 falls to the floor.
This is a most rudimentary way to prove what happens to excess CO2. When I have done this in front of or asked so-called experts about this, they were dumbfounded.
So remember folks, when you drive, breathe or do anything else, your CO2 goes into the ground just like rain after a rainstorm where the roots of plants absorb it as food. Also rem,ember that our bodies as well as our planet is mostly carbon. Lastly, despite what Al Gore says, it is the Sun that heats the Earth, not CO2. If "runaway greenhouse effect" was happening, Earth would be a mirror image of Venus.
Atmospheric Density is another question. With CO2 being much heavier and more dense than air, how come the measure of atmospheric density A.K.A. barometric pressure has not risen? That is because CO2 levels are not rising. The average barometric pressure at sea level has not changed one bit since readings began being recorded.
One more little thing, this year, Arctic Sea Ice is higher than average and much higher than ALGORE predicted for this year so the Polar Bears will be okay for a while.
Andrew33 also had to say:
Water acts like a battery. It is slow to store energy and slow to release energy. Land is the opposite, as it warms quickly and cools quickly. Like the Sun, the oceans go through warm and cold cycles which greatly affect the land around them. Warm Oceans nearby generally lead to warm moist weather patterns, while cold oceans nearby lead to cold dry weather patterns. The point I am getting to here is that the 0.2-0.4C increase over the last 50 years was caused by shifts in oceanic temperature. These are cyclical in nature and occur in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. They are known as the AMO and PDO respectively. The AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) was warm from the '30s through the '50's, then cold from the '60s through early '90s. By the late '90s it was back to warm again. That is why if you do any study of hurricane history, there were many in the '30s trough '50s, then there was a general lull until 95. After 95, hurricane activity ramped up in the Atlantic. On the Pacific side, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a similar pattern although less is known about historically. The Pacific was in a warm cycle in the '80s-'90s, but seems to recently have shifted to a cold cycle. The PDO is often associated with the phenomenon known as EL NINO. It is a personal belief of mine that the warm PDO cycle and the EL NINO events it triggered led to the common belief currently held that the globe is warming. I emphasize that people reading this do not just take my word for this but look it up for themselves. This is a very rudimentary explanation of the events that I believe have led to the misinformation known as "man made global warming." I encourage everyone who reads this to look this up for themselves and educate themselves here so that those spreading lies about global warming can be countered everywhere and at all times. A simple google search to NWS AMO will lead you to all this info.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Even as I write this, congress is voting on the Waxman-Markey tax and unemployment bill. In true leftist style, the bill is being crammed through congress without debate or consideration of opposing view-points. Also true to form, Henry Waxman inserted a 300 page amendment to his already 1,000 page bill last night so that no one really has a clue about what they are voting on.
My friends on the left, what does this say about the integrity of your politicians?
Today, there will be no discussion about the validity of man-made global warming on the congressional floor, lucky for you dear reader, I have no such fear of holding a debate here.
You will notice that this is my second of three posts regarding global warming. In my last post, I discussed how mathematical modeling works and the limitations of using modeling to establish scientific relationships and make predictions. My first point was that mathematical modeling cannot, in and of itself, prove a cause and effect relationship. I illustrated this point by showing a real model I’d created "proving" that voting for Barak Obama causes unemployment. My second point was that mathematical models are only useful for making predictions in the short-term. Global warming models going out 100 years are wrong.
Today I’m going to discuss how solar activity and not carbon dioxide is destined to win the debate regarding what causes fluctuations in global temperatures. I regret that there is no way to write this post without being somewhat tongue in cheek. I am sorry to those who don’t see the humor in some of this. It is merely the symptom of the willing suspension of common sense.
As I’ve often mentioned, it is difficult to parse through a “science” that is so highly politicized. However, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that solar activity is the main cause of global temperatures. As I understand it, the sun generally goes through 11 year cycles of increasing to decreasing solar activity, which effect global temperatures. I have seen a few models online and most of the models have an R-square of 60% or higher (about the same as the carbon dioxide folks). Here is an article from a Harvard scientist here.
So what C Gen? Our man made global warming models show just as strong of a relationship! However, solar activity models will prevail because it only takes a little common sense to prove a strong cause-effect relationship. If the sun were to extinguish tomorrow, what would the temperature of the earth be? How much heat will carbon dioxide and man generate once the sun is out of the equation?
The very term man-made global warming is a joke since man does not create any heat in the model. The cause and effect chain for man-made global warming goes like this: man makes carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide traps heat causing a .2 degree Celsius increase in temperatures over the last 50 years, which is causing water to evaporate more than usual adding another .4 degree Celsius increase over the last 50 years. The model cannot account for the fact that carbon dioxide is always increasing, but temperatures are not always increasing. However, the bigger hole is that the sun is nowhere in their equation and yet it is essential for global warming to exist. Doesn’t it sound a little presumptuous to hold solar activity constant when that is the only source for heat in your model?
It is even more concerning when it is well known that the sun has been responsible for dramatic changes in the earth’s temperature in the past. Many astrophysicists point to the little ice age, a long period where global temperatures were unusually cold and sun spot activity was nonexistent. So far, this June is likely to be one of the coldest June’s since the beginning of temperature records. Could it be a coincidence that there was no sun spot activity at the beginning of 2009?
If you need more proof of the sun’s ability to heat a planet, here is an article from that ultra conservative (laying on the sarcasm thick) Nation Geographic about how Mars has also seen global increases in temperature.
If facts weren’t bad enough, top global warming climatologists have made seriously poor defenses of their climate models as it relates to solar activity. Global warming scientist Mike Lockwood had this to say in a National Geographic article about the sun’s ability to affect global temperatures:
"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."
No Mike, it doesn’t help keep things in perspective since you are comparing apples to oranges. It’s like saying this, “the new F-somenumber is not faster than the new GM Greenster because the new jet has increased its top speed over the F-22 by only 1% and the Greenster beat out the top speed of a Prius by 40%." The sun is thousands of times bigger than the earth and a small change is significant. On the other hand, CO2 is .001% of the earth’s atmosphere. It requires very, very large changes to affect anything, if at all.
Hanson’s NASA finally admitted that the sun is having an effect on global temperatures. This would be a small sign of sanity in the organization had they not gone on to say that solar activity was responsible for 25% of global temperatures. Once again, I ask NASA to explain what the temperature of the earth would be if the sun were extinguished? We know that the sun is responsible for ice ages and temperatures far hotter than we are seeing now in the past? Even if NASA’s estimate is correct, it poses a big problem for carbon dioxide. If carbon dioxide is responsible for causing water vapor to be 66% of temperature increase, why can’t solar and not carbon dioxide be responsible for water vapor’s role?
If global warming scientists were to stay true to the scientific method, they would take their models and science back to square one. Sun-caused global warming has no such cause and effect problems. We know for certain that man has no effect on the sun. The earth also has minimal effect on the sun. The sun is necessary for any global warming to occur. In short, we are sure that the sun heats the planet.
Some light global warming reading:
Here is a post on global warming modeling
Here is a post on the insanity of the left’s tax and unemployment policy
Here is a great article about how tax and unemployment policies are killing Spain
Thursday, June 25, 2009
As many young voters laud Obama and his policies with complete reverence and adulation, I am reminded of a book written by Charles Dickens. The outcry from the young for Obama health care and cap and trade is almost the equivalent of Oliver Twist’s famous quote, “please sir, I’d like some more.”
I have long been confused by polling numbers regarding Obama support by age demographic. The Washington Post and ABC recently came out with a new poll regarding Obama’s approval rating. Now, this poll is wrong and heavily skewed to favor Obama. However, I doubt that an honest poll would show much difference as far as which age demographics support Obama the most. According to the poll, 71% of those polled between the ages of 18-29 approve of Obama and 66% of those between the ages of 30-39 approve of Obama. These two age demographics represented the largest amount of support for Obama. The real question is why are younger voters out of their minds?
In truth, Obama policies are going to place a large burden on the younger generations. Let me rephrase, Obama policies are going to squeeze the younger generations so tight that they will never enjoy the lifestyle or financial securities that their parents enjoyed. My progressive friends keep telling me I’m not looking at the “long term” benefits to Obama’s vision. However, I seriously doubt they’ve considered the reality of what Obama policies will bring in the “long term.”
To understand the idea of generational theft, you must understand the promises made, the promises being made, and the sacrifices you will be forced to make (I’m talking your average guy, NOT JUST THE RICH). You also need to understand the economies that each generation has/is facing and what that means. My point in this post is not to say we need to cut the older generations off, but that we need to be careful about programs we are reforming and ensure that great new promises aren’t going to bankrupt the young.
Currently, we the people have promised to provide assistance to retirees in the form of income. We also have promised health care assistance to the elderly and poor. Previous generations, especially the Greatest Generation, have and will benefit greatly from this while you pick up the tab. Please remember that those of the Greatest Generation have enjoyed many perks to employment such as pensions, free health care, and full retirement benefits under social security. Baby Boomers have been seeing these benefits paired back as they look to retire, but most people in the generation have enjoyed at least some or all of these benefits at sometime in their working lives. Add the fact that these generations worked at a time of US economic dominance and it is no wonder most are able to retire before the age of 60.
As the ranks of retirees begin to swell with the Baby Boomer generation, we in the generations remaining in the work force are on the hook to support these promises made. Why? Because we are taxed on our income and to earn income you generally have to be working. We are left following through on the promises that were made by a congress that voted long before we were born. As it stands, social security and Medicare/Medicaide are broke. To add to the Gen X and Millenial working woes, these two generations will never see the job perks of the past. Pensions and employer paid health care are a thing of the past. Our only retirement plan is simply, save everything you can.
Now Obama and the progressives are on the scene and they argue that not enough promises are being made. He wants to promise to cover everyone’s health care and reduce the average temperature of the planet by .5 degrees Celsius. The young people of this country cheer. Finally, they have a candidate that speaks for them or do they? What is that one question they all answer “the rich?” It happens to be, “who is going to pay for all of these promises?”
Well my young friends, below is a graph of Obama’s policies. It shows totals over the next ten years. First is the amount of revenue generated by implementing Obama’s tax on the rich. The second is the deficit of Obama’s health care by itself. The third is the deficit incurred by the entire Obama budget. Data was pulled off of the OMB and NY Times.
To the young readers of this post:
To believe that the rich are going to pay for you to live your wildest dreams is naïve. If health care costs spiral out of control, you are going to pay them and you will pay them for the next 30 years. The funny thing is that you will not even need to use the health care you are paying for. The Baby Boomers will thank you for all the hard work you are doing so that they can have cheaper health care. Cap and trade is coming out of your retirement fund. I hope that the .5 degrees Celsius is worth it.
The next question would have to be: how will government fix these failing programs by the time you want to retire? The favorite for social security is increasing the retirement age from 65-75. This won’t start until after the Baby Boomers. How are you going to finance 10 extra years of income on your own? Surely, you aren’t thinking that you are going to make more money over the next 30 years to pay for it? Not while you pay for retiree’s health care and global temperature reduction? I wish I had an answer for you.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Smitty a commentor on The Other McCain, a major conservative blog, recognized The Left Coast Rebel today.
Smitty calls the Rebel's Margaret Thatcher post "simple genius."
The Rebel's recognition is well deserved and as such he gets my Freddie Mercury Clapping Award. Please congratulate the Left Coast Rebel and remember to check out his posts as often as possible.
“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” A lie from Obama
Wrong. The truth is that you will have no control over whether you can keep your plan. That decision is up to your employer. The OMB estimates, conservatively, that 15 million would lose coverage from their employer. That’s 15 million that had a health care plan that they were able to pay for, but now do not have the private option to do so. I say that it is a conservative estimate because I find it more likely that employers will drop their plans once they start getting taxed for having them.
Obama is coming up with all sorts of savings to pay for his health care. Another lie.
The White House recently released how they had found another $80 billion in savings worked out with the drug companies. The only problem is that the White House can only really account for $30 billion of the $80 billion touted. I know that the libs feel as though we conservatives won’t give Obama a break, but honestly, the White House has no credibility when they keep throwing these lies out to the public like this. If news outlets covered more of the truth as opposed to carrying the water for Obama, I’m certain no one would ever believe a thing Obama says.
“Let me be clear, I don’t want to run the health care industry.” That remains to be seen Mr. President.
Let me make sure I’m clear. Obama doesn’t want to run banks, but he’s running banks. He doesn’t want to run the auto industry, but he’s running the auto industry. He is so serious about not running banks and the auto industry that he has created 15 Czars to run them for him. There is already a Czar for health care so that Obama doesn’t need to run that industry. I’m sorry, but as I’ve pointed out, the White House has no credibility.
Obama’s plan pays for itself. Wrong.
CBO estimates it will cost over $1 trillion.
“The ranks of the uninsured are swelling.” Not true.
The total number and percent of uninsured decreased from 2006 to 2007.
“There are over $45 million who can’t afford health care.” Not so fast!
About 13% of those are illegal aliens. 43% of the uninsured elderly have incomes 2.5 times the poverty level and can afford their own health care. There are many, many millions that can afford it and don’t want it or qualify for free health care, but don’t know about it.
Let’s put the rhetoric and ignorance aside for a second. The “health care crisis” is a myth. In truth, if you are uninsured, you probably can afford health care. If you can’t, you probably can afford health care.
I did a little research to see what health care plan I would get if my company did not offer a health care plan. I found the following insurance available through my state. You should know that I am a working, middle class professional and even I qualify for the State subsidized plan, Healthy NY (that is if my employer did not offer a plan).
It would cost me $220/month with prescription drug and $180/month without. That is actually cheaper than what I pay now! Here are the costs and Here is the coverage. This is very good health care.
Now let’s put this into perspective. I pay nearly as much in car insurance. I pay nearly as much for phone/cable/internet. I pay more for my car loan. I will pay about twice the amount/month in school loan payments over the next 20 years. If I needed a second job to pay for it, I would be able to cover the cost by working 8hr/week at minimum wage.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Is this a factual statement?
NOT even close. According to Factbook.net there are currently 9,732,061 Muslims out of a total US population of 278,058,881 or 3.5%.
So where are the largest populations of Muslims located?
If you take out the Middle East. Africa. and Asian nations one would normally think of Yugoslavia's Muslim population is 19%, Singapore at 17%, Israel at 14%, Russia and France are tied at approximately 10% of their total population rounding out the top 5 countries.
Did Obama make a mistake?
Could he have been talking about North and South America?
Nope, wrong again. Guyana's Muslim population is at 14% and Panama is at 4%.
So that leaves us with just North America (the US, Canada, and Mexico).
Yup we have a weenier. Out of 243 countries world wide the US has the highest Muslim population in North America.
So where does the US rank world wide out of the 60 countries with the highest Muslim populations? (52nd) according to the 2007 world census.
So why would Obama make such an flagrant erroneous statement?
According to his liberal media friends he is trying to appeal to the masses of Muslims that are
not Islamic or follow Sharia Law.
Its a stupid mistake. In the first place Islamic Fundamentalist are only interested in TWO things. The total destruction of Israel and the US and the World domination of the Islamic
religion by force.
Which bring me to my second point. Is the US based on Christian religious beliefs?
Here is a short history lesson.
While I did not write the following essay, I can assure that the accuracy of the information
is factual and is documented.
On the aluminum cap, atop the in Washington DC, are
displayed two words:
Laus Deo. [Lah-us Dee-o]
No one can see these words. In fact, most visitors to the monument are totally unaware they are even there and for that matter, probably couldn't care less. Once you know Laus Deo's history, you will want to share this with everyone you know. I do.
But these words have been there for many years; they are 555 feet, 5.125 inches high, perched atop the monument, facing skyward to the Father of our nation, overlooking the 69 square miles which comprise the District of Columbia, capital of the United States of America.
Laus Deo! Two seemingly insignificant, un-noticed words. Out of sight and, one might think, out of mind, but very meaningfully placed at the highest point over what is the most powerful city in the most successful nation in the world.
So, what do those two words, in Latin, comprised of just four syllables and only seven letters, possibly mean?
Very simply, they say "Praise be to God!" [Laus is Praise be and Deo means God]
Though construction of this giant obelisk began in 1848, when James Polk
was President of the United States, it was not until 1888 that the monument was inaugurated and opened to the public. It took twenty five years to finally cap the memorial with a tribute to the Father of our nation, "Laus Deo....Praise be to God!"
From atop this magnificent granite and marble structure, visitors may take in the beautiful panoramic view of the city with it's division into four major segments. From that vantage point. one can also easily see the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles l'Enfant...a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape, with the White House to the north. The is
to the south, the Capitol to the east and the to the west.
A cross you ask ? Why a cross? What about separation of church and state?
Yes, a cross; separation of church and state was not, is not, in the Constitution.
So, read on . . .
How interesting and, no doubt, intended to carry a profound meaning for those who bother to notice. Praise be to God! Within the monument itself are 898 steps and 50 landings. As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings the memorial stones share a message. On the 12th Landing is a prayer offered by the City of Baltimore; on the 20th is a memorial presented by some Chinese Christians; on the 24th a presentation made by Sunday School children from
New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6.Praise be to God!
When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848 deposited within it were many items including the Holy Bible presented by the Bible Society. Praise be to God! Such was the discipline, the moral direction, the spiritual mood given by the founder and first President of our unique democracy ..."One Nation, Under God." I am awed by Washington's prayer for America.
Have you never read it?
Well now is your unique opportunity, so read on!
"Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United states at large." And finally that Thou wilt most
graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves
with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed nation.
Laus Deo! As you probably guessed, over 92 percent of Americans like the idea that our Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase "under God." It is clear when one studies the history of our great nation, that Washington's America was one of the few countries in all the world established under the guidance, direction and banner of Almighty God, to whom was given all praise, honor and worship by the great men who formed and fashioned her pivotal foundations.
When one stops to observe the inscriptions found in public places all over our nation's capitol, he or she will easily find the signature of God, as it is unmistakably inscribed everywhere you look.
Though many try to disprove and reason, their arguments are weak and easily proven without basis. Their efforts will forever be in vain; God assures us of that. Have you noticed as of late, how many more people are coming together, affirming the fact that this nation was, from the beginning, built on God?
Any nation that is not built upon God will fail.
Do you wonder why, when other nations fall into an abyss, does the United
States continually prosper?
Now you know, but do not let the arrogance of some instill doubt within you.
The truth is . . .
We have always been one nation under God! Laus Deo! Praise be to God! You may forget the width and height of "Laus Deo", it's location, or the architects but no one who reads this will be able to forget it's meaning, or these words: "Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in
It is hoped you will send this to every child you know; to every sister, brother, father, mother or friend. They will not find offense, because you have given them a lesson in history that they probably never learned in school. With that, be not ashamed, or afraid, but have pity on those who will never see.
If you doubt the cross is there take a satellite picture of Washington, DC and enlarge it until you can identify the Washington Monument in the center and the four points mention in the essay above and you will very clearly see a cross. www.tagzania.com/pt/washington-monument/
Click on HYBRID and print the map then with a ruler draw a line between the Lincoln Memorial-the Washington Monument-the Capital Building. Now draw a line between the
White House and the Jefferson Memorial.
About the Author:
Dr. Magill matriculated his residency in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, and served as the Chief of Ob/Gyn at Irwin Army Hospital Ft. Riley Kansas. He presently is a practicing Obstetrician & Gynecologist in Springfield, Missouri. Dr. Magill is the Chairman and CEO of Magill Motivational Media Inc., dedicated to inspiring, motivating and bring to the surface that great love for our nation, which exists in most of her sons and daughters hearts. As an author and lyricist Dr. Magill has authored such pieces as, "Here we go again," "The Greatest Generation," "The Requiem of the Brave," "The Battle Hymn of the Republicans," "The Pledge of Allegiance - say it with pride, say it with Understanding," "The Birth of A Great Nation," & "The Night of the Nativity Christ is evicted from the Church." His studies, writings and/or interviews have appeared in, The Journal of Military Medicine, The Living Church, The Chronicle Republican, Springfield News Leader, and The New York Times, among others. He has served on the campaign committee of and has performed the voice talent for several, various state, candidates.
One more point. The base of the cross points east toward Jerusalem.
God Bless you,
"Plan ahead, It wasn't raining when Noah built the Ark."
Friday, June 12, 2009
Below is an authentic open letter written to Obama from Lou Pritchett, former VP of Proctor & Gamble and a legend in change management.
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
I'd say I'd agree with most, but not all of Lou Pritchett's points.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
During the 6th season of American Idol in 2006, Sanjaya Malakar caused uproar in pop culture by advancing to 7th place. For those of you who may not know, American Idol is a reality TV show where young contestants complete in a singing contest and viewers vote on who they thought did the best job. What made this event in reality TV history so monumental was how Sanjaya managed to accomplish this feat. Nearly all other contestants had advanced on singing talent and stage presence. Sanjaya on the other hand advanced because people liked him.
Reality TV’s shtick is to publicize every contestant’s background story. The viewers then get to watch those stories play out on their TV. If the show is good, people feel as though the contestant’s life story has resulted in a reciprocal outcome on the show. There is more to it of course. Story alone is not everything. Watchers also make judgments regarding how the contestants carry themselves on camera and interact with the other contestants.
I apologize for my digression into the realm of pop culture. However, after over 10 years of reality TV our culture has become obsessed with being involved in completing and finishing their favorite celebrity’s life story.
So how does this relate to politics? Despite overwhelming public opposition to nearly all of Obama’s policies, Obama’s approval ratings remain around 60%. If you don’t believe me that many people do not agree with Obama, here is a little expose:
* 45% of American’s (a majority of those surveyed) believe the rest of Obama’s stimulus should be canceled
* 62% of American’s feel that economic recovery is more important than transfer of wealth
* 49% of American’s (a majority of those surveyed) believe that health care reform should wait
* 62% of American’s believe Iran should halt nuclear development before Obama meets with them
* 45% of people opposed the government auto loans, 80% feared that the government would get too involved and 72% opposed Obama getting more involved in February
* 49% oppose closing Guantanamo and 56% oppose bringing detainees to the US
Not all polls have been negative for Obama. Most people approve of his Supreme Court pick, Sotomayor, and believed that he should have done some type of stimulus plan. So what’s keeping his numbers up?
Those I’ve talked to on the left believe that the election of Obama points at a shift to the left in the country and an acceptance of the leftist agenda. Polling doesn't seem to indicate this argument holds water. I have a different take.
Obama truly has an amazing story. He was shuffled around as a child, was not born into the US elite, and from what we can guess (because no one will let us look at actual documentation), Obama is a self-made success. I propose that there is a large number of Americans that voted for and continue to support Obama, because they want to see a positive completion to the Obama story.
Now I can’t complain about Obama promoting himself for political gain. After all, that’s what politics is about. However, a recent PEW survey shows why Obama has been and continues to be successful in promoting himself over and above of the negative public opinion of his agenda. According to the article, the media coverage of Obama has been largely skewed in the favorable direction, 42% favorable coverage versus 20% unfavorable. The more convincing fact in this study is the nature of the stories. News stories of Obama’s personal and leadership qualities and not Obama’s policies are at an astounding 44% of media coverage.
Could it be that the media wants the public to continue to focus on helping the story of Obama end in success as opposed to pointing out that a majority of people do not agree with Obama? Hard to believe when this same playbook for Obama is being used to push Sotomayor’s confirmation. When she was announced the media was abuzz about her story, not her qualifications.
There are consequences to all actions and although the media may be pulling the wool over the eyes of the public where Obama's policies is concerned, that coverage does not extend to congress. For those of you who believe that the Republicans are irrelevant and will continue to dwindle in the 2010 elections, take a look at the new poll from Rasmussen pictured below. It shows America's trust on issues by party.
What is most interesting about the poll is a shift in public support away from the Democrats and towards Republicans. Left Coast Rebel has an excellent commentary on this new trend entitled "Tides of Opinion - Candles Burning Half as Long".
While the left was busy offering Bush as the straw man for deficit woes, the stock market tumbled today because of increasing oil prices and a poor showing at a Treasury bond sale. Both of these issues are leading to the same looming problem, inflation. This was not unexpected. Neither is the fact that Obama plans to fight inflation with more inflationary spending.
Meanwhile, the Bush straw man argument does not hold much water. The reason the US government can carry any deficit has to do with foreign confidence in US currency. That confidence in the currency often translates into how the world views our nation’s ability to ensure a strong economy. The truth is that although Bush spent (and I’m not saying I agree that he should), the rest of the world had faith in Bush and that he would not push the economy into insolvency. Obama on the other hand came out of the gate like a teenager with their first credit card. He quickly quadrupled Bush’s deficit and made several half hearted attempts at being fiscally responsible. He is still doing it and has lost his credibility. Yet, I seem to recall the Republicans kicking and screaming for Obama to address the deficits for the last 5 months. By not addressing how he would realistically control the deficits caused by himself and Bush, Obama is solely responsible for what economic woes await us.
In the end, it doesn’t matter who outspent who. What matters is which President’s arrogance led to the lack of credibility. The answer is Obama. If you think it was Bush, tell me who is still pushing their spending agenda, Bush or Obama?
Monday, June 8, 2009
It looks like even leftist media outlets are starting to echo truth about the stimulus. In my post on 6/4/09, I argued that the Obama administration and Obama's stimulus plan were having a negative effect on the economy. My points were that the stimulus was causing savings instead of spending and the administration had lost as many jobs as they created. Today, AP has an article about how the stimulus is causing interest rates to increase instead of drop.
Quote the AP article:
“The Federal Reserve announced a $1.2 trillion plan three months ago designed to push down mortgage rates and breathe life into the housing market.
But this and other big government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect. Rates for mortgages and U.S. Treasury debt are now marching higher as nervous bond investors fret about a resurgence of inflation.”
The article quickly comes to the conclusion:
“That's the Catch-22 threatening to make an awful housing market potentially worse and keep the economy stuck in a funk. Kick-starting the economy requires higher spending, but rising rates mean fewer Americans will be able to refinance their home loans. And some potential buyers will be shut out of the market by higher monthly payments they won't be able to afford.”
What does this mean? It means that any gains in the housing market made by the $1 trillion in TARP spending may be erased by Obama’s policies causing the bank's liquidity problem to become more serious.
All this planned spending is negatively affecting the fundamentals of our economy. Obama’s solution? He wants to spend more of the stimulus, faster and ensure the passing of his health care. Great plan Mr. President, do more of what is causing this new economic problem, faster, while trying to create bigger spending. That ought to help.
The pace at which the media is waking up to the disaster that is Obama’s economic policies is causing is a little surprising. However, don’t expect the NY Times to start covering the truth behind Obamanomics, they had a puff piece out today about how fighting amidst the Obama economic advisors adds to the value of the group and allows the President a diversity of opinions. I’m fairly certain that had Obama’s team been in complete agreement over the new economic developments, we’d have a piece trumpeting how Obama’s unified, cohesive group of economic advisors proves that Obama is going in the right direction on the economy.
Meanwhile, the article misses the point that these advisors were all in agreement over the economics of the stimulus. It was the method of spending the stimulus that they argued over. It also fails to mention that the President doesn’t understand anything about the economy and wouldn’t know what the right economic solution if it bit him. All he knows is politics and that’s evident by his handling of the auto companies.
This possibility took another step closer to coming to fruition today as the lawyers for the State of Indiana have requested that the Supreme Court stay the agreement with Fiat based on their contractual rights to fully collect on the Chrysler debt that they held according to a WSJ article. I must admit that I am very concerned about the potential outcome. I doubt the possibility that the Supreme Court would not rule in Indiana’s favor should they agree to hear the case. A favorable ruling for Indiana would likely result in Fiat stepping away from the deal and a liquidation of Chrysler. In turn, Chrysler’s liquidation would mean more economic disaster for an already decimated economy. It result in the loss of all jobs at Chrysler, dealerships, and hardships for trade creditors who are lending free capital to the struggling company. Even more concerning is the possibility that the GM bankruptcy may take the same ill fated turn.
While the media continues to carry the water for Obama downplays the significance (in hopes for a favorable Obama outcome so they do not need to report the gamble Obama is making) or tries to vilify the State of Indiana, the truth is that we are in this position because of Obama. He made the brazen, miscalculated decision to violate his oath of office on behalf of his political allies and as a result we are staring at a potentially economically devastating situation.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS ISSUED A STAY. Such an uneccasary tragedy. Thanks Obama. Next time do the right thing instead of playing politics.
Friday, June 5, 2009
It seems the leftist hate for Sarah Palin can only be equaled to their love of Barak Obama. As the leftist media talking bobble heads unceasingly thrust their noses in the air and tout their democrat, moral high ground street cred, they also unceasingly turn their heads and media pens from the obvious moral leftist atrocities that are evident daily. Who’s got the time? They are too busy talking about how they have finally ended torture, human rights violations, and fighting for the legitimacy of a seeming endless number of invented civil rights. They are so arduous in their crusade to positively brand their party of association, who could blame them if they can’t find the time to report the news about how the left is trying to ruin Sarah Palin? After all, the left is peace loving and empathetic, to report such dishonesty would be against the template of truth.
Two days ago Sarah Palin celebrated the news that she had been vindicated in her 14th ethics complaint. This particular complaint was filed by a leftist blogger and contained 22 separate allegations. Like the complaints before, the 14th complaint was both politically motivated and lacking of substance.
Good luck trying to find media coverage on the issue. I had to go to the Alaska State website. If you can find an article, I’m sure you’ll find the following media template in place:
* Ethical complaints continue to mount for Palin
* It was determined that no violation was made on Palin’s part
* Palin claims the complaints are politically motivated
* Defending herself is costing lots of money
What the template misses is the growing incongruence that shows that the democrat party is not actually the party of moral high ground or empathy, but a party willing to resort to whatever tactics it deems necessary to achieve its ideological goals. They fear and dislike Sarah Palin so they must make every effort to destroy her financially, politically, or whatever avenue they can invent.
It’s time the left cleaned up their own party instead of quietly condoning the dirty tactics. If the left really wants to take the moral high ground, it’s time to confront and end the dirty tricks. It's time the left stood up for Sarah Palin.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Let’s define what success for Obama’s stimulus bill should look like. First, the point of any stimulus is to stimulate economic recovery. In a supply-sided policy, we’d expect to see companies growing as the cost of investment and risk falls (investment increases as companies have an incentive to create more inventories). In Obama’s demand-sided policy, we should see an increase in consumer spending and if the stimulus is really successful there will be an increase in the rate at which consumers spend. Second, much of the success of Obama’s demand-sided stimulus was to be achieved by making it a mission to save and create 3.5 million jobs to ease the bleeding spending rate that would be inevitable with huge losses in unemployment. To achieve these goals, Obama’s stimulus needs to be quickly implemented, directed in a way that consumer spending is increased, and hopefully an increase in the rate of consumer spending will be a result.
Keynes argued that consumer spending was made up of one part spending and one part savings. They actually work against each other in the model. As the rate of spending increases the rate of savings will decrease. The theory behind a demand-sided stimulus policy is that you put money into the hands of consumers and based on the rate that the consumers spend a money multiplier effect will ripple life back into an economy. It’s like throwing a rock into a quiet pond, the more ripples, the more business transactions created as a result and the quicker the economy will recover. The ripple effect is directly related to the rate of consumer spending. If the spending rate drops, the ripples will be smaller or possibly nonexistent.
After three months we can now say that the stimulus has failed to increase consumer spending. A Bloomberg article on June 1st regarding consumer wages, spending and savings has all the facts needed to show that Obama’s stimulus has achieved the opposite of its intended purpose with regards to increasing consumer spending. The article states that consumer spending has fallen .1% in April and .3% in March. Though this may sound like the stimulus is spurring a slowdown in the drop of consumer spending, the following analysis puts this possibility to bed.
“The savings rate rose to 5.7 percent, spurred by an unexpected jump in incomes linked to the fiscal stimulus.”
The dot that is not being connected in this article is that as the savings rate grows, the spending rate drops. Even though the total amount of consumer spending is not dropping as quickly in April as it did in March, the rate in which consumers are spending had a devastating decrease. There can be no doubt about what was written, the stimulus is actually directly responsible for diminishing the economic ripples that are necessary for the bill to be successful.
If you go on to read, you’ll see that the stimulus has created such an increase in savings that it is wiping out the effect of stimulus and is bleeding into consumer spending that is unrelated to fiscal policy.
“Incomes climbed 0.5 percent, the biggest gain in almost a year, reflecting increases in unemployment insurance benefits and social security payments associated with the Obama administration’s stimulus plan.”
Once again, this sounds like Obama’s plan is working as household incomes are increasing. However, you will notice that the rate of savings has grown at a far faster pace than the rate that incomes increased. To sum it all up, the stimulus is causing people to decrease spending so much that they are saving, not spending, all the stimulus dollars and some of their none stimulus income as well. The stimulus is actually causing the economy to shrink, not grow.
Meanwhile after 3 months, the NY Times reported that Obama estimates he has created 150,000 jobs. The losses the Obama administration ordered in connection with the auto industry more than wipe out those employment gains. Obama has decreased employment as much as he increased them.
Obama gets a failing grade as far as the execution of his bill goes as well. The NY Times reported that after 3 months, only 6% of the stimulus bill has been apportioned. At this rate, it will take nearly 4 to 5 years for the funds to be depleted. As pointed out previously, the stimulus has created less spending and a decrease in the rate of consumer spending.
Bad legislation wouldn’t be complete without other severe negative side effects. After all, what can you expect from a bill that was rushed by a congress who never bothered to read the bill. The stimulus bill started a snowball of international concerns regarding the stability of US currency. Coupled with Obama’s budget which projects a larger deficit than revenues, Obama’s economic policies has caused international investors to shy away from purchasing US debt. The circumstances are becoming so dire that Fed Chairman Bernanke threw Obama under the bus yesterday stating:
“Concerns about large federal deficits," Mr. Bernanke said, are one cause of the unwanted rise in yields. The wider the deficits, the more the Treasury borrows and the higher rates go. Wider deficits also stir inflation fears, which also push Treasury yields up.”
Bernanke also stated that Obama’s deficits must be addressed or the economy will suffer.
The economic score since this blogs inception:
C Gen: 2 (stimulus will be a failure and Obama’s policies will ruin the economy)
Larry Summers: 0
Ben Bernanke: 0
Timothy Giethner: 0
Paul Krugman: 0
Unfortunately, the Republicans were lambasted by the left and the press (as if they were not one in the same) for their opposition to Obama’s stimulus plan. It turns out that hoping for Obama to fail in passing his stimulus would have been good for the country. Somehow I doubt that the media will now start to point this out. Luckily, we’ve only spent 6% of Obama’s stimulus. It’s time we repeal his package and institute one that will actually create jobs faster than Obama can destroy them, increase consumer spending and the rate of spending. Let’s pass a responsible stimulus that can be quickly implemented and get a bigger ripple in the economy for less of the cost. If Obama’s economic policies don’t fail in congress, then it is certain that the country will suffer. Just ask the Fed Chairman.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The above graph above is a picture of your standard Demand/Supply Curve. The theory behind this graph has largely been attributed to Alfred Marshall. I ask that you pay close attention to the supply curve. The shape of the supply curve was thought up as Marshall studied how farmers went about cultivating land. He noted that farmers always cultivated the easiest, most fertile land at first. He noted that it cost the farmer little effort to till and sow on flat land. However, as the need for more production increased, farmers would begin to till land that was less fertile and more difficult to cultivate such as hills and swamps. As a result, Marshall observed that farmers put forth much more effort to till this land, often yielding less and/or a poorer quality crop. Thus the supply curve was discovered.
Now the problems with health care are plenty and I do not presume to be an expert on how to alleviate health care woes. However, Obama’s health care promise is an economic impossibility. The key here is that we are providing this health care to all. He depicts our government as providing the current level of quality health care, at low cost, and to everyone. The quintessential problem with Obama’s lie is the same one facing the farmer when cultivating land. The more you try to produce for each additional person, the greater the marginal cost will be.
The problem with Obama’s statement is that hospitals, doctors offices, the number of doctors and nurses, the availability of facilities to a geographic location and the availability of life saving medical technology has been established for the current cost and number of consumers. To provide the same access to health care for all we would need to create more producers and facilities to provide an increase in the amount of health care. Since the system is already set up to accommodate those willing to pay at current rates, we need to make a much larger effort to include those not willing to pay at current rates. That means higher wages for doctors and nurses to attract more people to the field (there is already a shortage of doctors). It means higher costs to facilities to supply more locations and care for more patients. The result is a choice between access and quality or high costs.
This also points out the hole in Obama’s health care cost calculator. He is simply taking 47 million uninsured and multiplying that times the average health premium. In truth, the cost to add the extra 47 million is exponential and cannot simply be equated with market prices.
These truths have already been played out in MA. Robert Verdi at The 46 did an excellent post on how MA health care has created soaring costs and less access to health care called "A Second Look at Massachusetts Health Care". I will not rewrite all his points, please check out his post if you are interested.
Once again, I’m not presenting an answer only a truth. If you want to provide health care to all and you want Obama’s plan to pass, you have a choice; either costs that will choke the American tax payer or a drastic decrease in the level and quality of health care. Take your pick, but don’t kid yourself, Obama’s touted top notch, affordable health care for all at a low cost speech is a myth.
Monday, June 1, 2009
I know many conservatives are going to wonder why I’m wasting my time with Krugman. However, Krugman highlights a thinking and attitude that as Krugman spews, the rest of the media in the US prints. I want to plug Nick’s blog, It’s just my opinion, I could be wrong, who posted on Krugman’s Op-Ed late last week called “The Big Inflation Scare” and did an excellent job.
I need to backup and preface my discussion a little before I continue. First of all, economics is a fickle subject, which is one of the reasons I chose Business and Accounting to study for my Masters. For every Nobel economist like Krugman trumpeting one policy, there is another Nobel economist with as many accolades trumpeting the exact opposite policy. After all the chips settle, both will still be arguing who was more right and both would cite reasonable points to back themselves up. Even Krugman in his piece points out, that economists do not always see things in the same way. Also it should be noted that I am an economics light weight in comparison to Krugman. The pinnacle of my economics profession peaked as a TA teaching intro to economics and giving a single presentation on the economic development of Asian nations to the NYS Economics Association. Krugman on the other hand, owns a Nobel Prize and does economics for a living. I highlight these differences because Krugman’s arguments are so week in his recent piece, that even I, do not have a problem picking out his flaws. In short, his piece was big on political spin BS and very light on actual economic reasoning.
“But it’s hard to escape the sense that the current inflation fear-mongering is partly political, coming largely from economists who had no problem with deficits caused by tax cuts but suddenly became fiscal scolds when the government started spending money to rescue the economy. And their goal seems to be to bully the Obama administration into abandoning those rescue efforts.”
This is Krugman’s big conclusion so I figured I’d handle it first. Here Krugman is claiming that the economists opposed to his ideas are simply being “political.” He obviously hasn't thought of this, but if you are going to accuse other’s of being motivated by politics you may not want to be speaking via the progressive Obama mouthpiece called the NY Times. The same Krugman who regularly writes on politics, often leaving the realm of economics to do so and who vehemently supports Obama is accusing other’s of being political in their economic ideology. Here is a recent blog post from Krugman displaying his one-sided political world-view on conservatives (on a side note: I can’t believe these quotes are the best Krugman’s got on 2 out of how many conservative representatives), now you tell me if Krugman is not political.
Without even looking at the economics of Krugman’s arguments, Krugman discredits himself in part for his political views.
Here are the highlights of his political arguments:
* Reports that the FED and US government are printing money are false. They are buying lots of US debt and paying for it by crediting banks with extra reserves. C Gen’s response? THAT’S THE SAME THING AS PRINTING MONEY! Whether you are playing with financial monetary accounting or printing dollars, both expand the money supply.
* We inflated our money supply during the Great Depression and never saw inflation even as people were screaming that inflation was on its way. First of all, today’s economy is nothing like the economy of the Great Depression. Also, there is a very good reason why the US never saw inflation from FDR’s policies. The answer is WWII. After WWII, the only economy standing was the US. As a result of this and the gold standard, the world soaked up all the extra dollars the US had printed thus saving the US from the throws of inflation.
* He also goes on to state that there is no reason to worry about debt-to-equity in the US exceeding even 100%, because “hey, Belgium, Canada, and Japan got away with it.” Yet he doesn’t want to mention the UK, which is having trouble at this very moment for the level of debt that they are carrying.
* Krugman writes, “Still, don’t such actions have to be inflationary sooner or later? No.” Krugman clearly believes that inflationary fiscal and monetary policy will fight deflation, but somehow inflation will magically stop once the economy has turned around. If inflating your debt and currency doesn’t cause inflation, then I’m not sure anything causes inflation. In fact, I would have to doubt that inflation was even possible. While Krugman is able to quote a few places where inflation hasn’t occurred, I could quote thousands where it has. For example, just about every single developing nation in the world.
Here is the deal with Krugman. It’s not that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about that makes him sound a little silly. It’s what he does know and might be correct about, but not telling you that explains why his arguments are light on substance. The reason why Krugman and the FOMC are not worried about inflation in the short term is because the economy is not really turning around. Sure we may see a little bit of positive GDP growth over the next few years (that’ll be enough to call the recession ended), but the real story that is emerging is that we are going to have lots of unemployment. So long as there is unemployment, the progs are not worried about inflation. Why? Because when people are unemployed, prices become inelastic and businesses cannot pass cost increases onto consumers. So the companies are going to foot the costs instead of pass them onto consumers? No! What they are going to do is hold wages down, or decrease them, or better yet, put more people out of work.
To sum it up! The progs are betting that we don’t have to worry about inflation, because their policies are so bad by creating debt and increasing money supply they hope that they will put enough people out of work to stop inflation.
Suprisingly, even causing unemployment might not be enough. Here are several reasons why we may see inflation anyways. Mortgage foreclosures hit a record high of 12%. That means that those banks that we were thinking were starting to fix their liquidity problems are really still in very big trouble. We may just have to do more of that printing, but not really printing money scheme to bail them out further. Also, there is a quickly growing trend to move away from the dollar as a world currency. China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and now South Korea are all starting to divest in the dollar. Moody is considering down grading the US Treasury ratings and have already done so to the UK (the UK is in the same economic monetary and fiscal position that the US is in). Krugman and the progs may not think that the US dollar is going to be inflated anytime soon, but increasingly the rest of the world is.
You’d have to go outside the US to find harsh economic criticism regarding Obama’s economic policies, but here it is:
Here’s one from Canada
Here’s one from Australia
Here’s one from Russia
Here’s one from Warren Buffet (ok he’s in the US, but he did support Obama)
It’s clear that Obama continues to treat the US population like children and spoon feed them ideas of hope. He’s letting people believe that there is hope in our time. He’s making very important economic decisions without being frank with the American people. You have to ask yourself, “is this exactly what I voted for?” A candidate that is pro-unemployment?
Here is an interesting article from Reuters about bond yields increasing.
Geithner gets laughed at today by Chinese students as Geithner reassured that the dollar's value is safe.