Posts Tagged ‘economy’


“Profit” is a six-letter word, not four

August 11, 2009

Claire McCaskill (D-MO) hates the concept of profits. “Insurance companies make an excess of $12 billion in profits every year. That’s where the reform needs to happen,” she says.

Instead of criticizing the problem of access to insurance, or the limitations private insurance puts on healthcare access (which we are being told is the problem), McCaskill makes no attempt to conceal what the debate over healthcare is about. It’s a government takeover of a profitable industry in the interest of redistributing wealth and exterminating the private sector.

The failure of Left-wing economics is the tendency to disavow any role for profit in creating progress. All economic progress we have made in this country has been made because greedy capitalists sought profits. The light bulb, the automobile, the television…these were all invented by greedy, profit-seeking bastards. So were penicillin, the stethoscope, the smallpox vaccine, the heart monitor and other inventions that have made it exponentially easier to keep people alive and healthy than it was hundreds of years ago. And the sterilization tools, floor mops, latex gloves and millions of miles of rubber tubing that every hospital and doctor’s office uses are created by companies motivated not by some utopian altruism, but by an interest in making a product that people demand and selling it for profit.

Profit-seeking is a natural and inextinguishable human motive. If it were not natural, evolution would not have allowed living organisms to develop instincts of self-preservation. The beauty of a truly free market is that this natural and human instinct of profit-seeking can be harnessed to place limits on profit seekers themselves. Apple cannot charge $1 million for an iPod; it must make its iPods affordable enough that they can be purchased en masse by consumers who demand it because it has intrinsic value and it is in their self-interest to do so. The profit-seeking motive of the consumer, manifest in his interest in saving as much money as possible, limits the profit-seeking motive of the producer.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Beer diplomacy

July 31, 2009

Yesterday President Barack Hussein Obama invited Officer James Crowley, Professor Henry Gates and Joe Biden to the White House to sit down and talk their differences out over beer.

Never mind the fact that Obama’s choice of beer is Bud Lite (Biden went for a non-alcoholic Buckler). This “Beer Summit” is just another example of Obama’s cavalier attitude towards the obvious mistakes that he makes. After realizing the gravity of his major faux-pas when he exposed his obvious racism when asked what he thought about the Gates arrest, his preferred strategy for amending the situation was to resort to his usual holier-than-thou attitude towards the general public. He called it a “teachable moment,” as though never before in the history of the human race have a black man and a white man sat down and talked before.

“Beer Summit” became a trending topic on Twitter today, probably because everyone in America is trying to make light of the situation that this little stunt made us look downright ridiculous and ignorant to the rest of the world. And that’s all it was–another stunt that our Rockstar President used to show what a populist he is and how he’s all about reconciliation. If Bush had tried to do this, he would have been mocked mercilessly for weeks.

Obama, Gates and Crowley drink to a false sense of improved race relations while the economy disintegrates and Obamas poll numbers plummet.

Obama, Gates and Crowley drink to a false sense of improved race relations while the economy disintegrates and Obama's poll numbers plummet.

It should be interesting to see how BHO deals with the latest news on the economy–that the media has largely overestimated lied about the state of the economy and that the recession has been twice as bad as previously thought. We’d be much better off right now if Obama cracked another cold one, kicked back and let people run the country who actually understand how an economy works.


Creating artificial demand

July 30, 2009

I spoke with a friend of mine last night on the issue of infrastructure-building in cities as a means of creating economic stimulus and reducing environmental impact. Our debate turned to proposals to build both light rail and heavy rail systems in Ohio’s cities, especially in Cincinnati.

The support for these proposals is based on these principles:

  1. People want and need mass transit, because it will be cheaper than driving cars.
  2. Cities want and need mass transit to alleviate congestion problems and to create jobs.
  3. These mass transit systems, once created, will be sustainable, profitable and successful.

I will not get into the specifics of #1 and #2, since a number of other studies have already addressed these misconceptions. One in particular dispels the myths of the environmental and economic benefits of these systems, and even points to the role that government-subsidized rail systems played in causing the economic collapse in Japan (the so-called “Lost Decade,” from which Japan has yet to fully recover).

But all the research I have ever read suggests that #3, the sustainability and profitability of mass transit, is unlikely. Most mass transit programs in major cities have to be subsidized by the government because the general public does not use them enough to be profitable.

Why would the government use tax dollars to build something that the average person doesn’t want and wouldn’t use anyways? Why, to “stimulate the economy” and “create jobs,” of course. This is the principle of creating artificial demand.
Keep reading…


State governors wary of ObamaCare

July 20, 2009

The Boston Globe reported today that the National Governors Association, the bipartisan organization of state governors from around the country, is skeptical of the Obama administration’s universal healthcare tax because of the burden it would place on state Medicaid programs. Even Bill Richardson, the Democratic governor of New Mexico, says he is “very concerned about the cost issue.”

The states are fully aware that they are not prepared to deal with the hellstorm of taxation, spending, waste, and bureaucracy that will rain down upon this nation if the administration gets its way. In fact, ObamaCare would presumably be impossible in many states, as more than half of them have balanced-budget provisions in their state constitutions.

This economic recession may turn out to be a protective shield against the administration’s socialist aspirations. A double digit federal debt is scaring enough people on both sides of the aisle and forcing them to a realization that out-of-control debt-based spending is both unsustainable and disastrous for our nation’s economic stability. The idea of increasing taxes on both energy and healthcare is no longer a viable option to most consumers who can already barely afford to pay for these things to begin with. People are starting to realize that economic recovery is the last thing on Obama’s mind, and he won’t be able to take advantage of this crisis and exploit it to advance his blatantly anti-free market policy program for too much longer, based on what his ambitions and our economic death march are doing to public opinion.