The fundamental flaw in progressivism is that it promises to lift up some groups but it does so at the expense of others: elevating blacks at the expense of whites; lifting up women by pushing down men; helping the poor and middle class by vilifying the rich; benefitting employees by punishing the businesses that employ them, etc. This is also evident in their "zero sum game" view of economics or in other words one group's gain comes at another group's loss. The appeal of this is that it requires no effort on the part of those it purports to help.
The sad reality is in the end this philosophy results in everyone being worse off.
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Friday, January 8, 2016
Really, Bernie? ATM Fees?
While I can understand the populist appeal to saying ATM fees are too high, how can this be a presidential level issue? And yet, Bernie Sanders devoted time to this issue on the campaign trail. In order to not be bested by Sanders, Hillary Clinton weighed in to demonstrate her own economic illiteracy.
At an average of $4 per transaction, ATM fees amount to only about $208 a year assuming one withdraws their weekly spending money from an ATM. That's $4/wk x 52 wks/yr = $208 for the math challenged. Everyone dislikes paying ATM fees but with all the other issues we have in this country, how does this warrant even a nano second of their or the country's time? Sanders promises to reduce ATM fees to $2 per transaction. Based on what? His personal belief of what is fair?
Is that really what we want a president to concern himself or herself over? Something of so little consequence? I certainly hope not!
At an average of $4 per transaction, ATM fees amount to only about $208 a year assuming one withdraws their weekly spending money from an ATM. That's $4/wk x 52 wks/yr = $208 for the math challenged. Everyone dislikes paying ATM fees but with all the other issues we have in this country, how does this warrant even a nano second of their or the country's time? Sanders promises to reduce ATM fees to $2 per transaction. Based on what? His personal belief of what is fair?
Is that really what we want a president to concern himself or herself over? Something of so little consequence? I certainly hope not!
Thursday, December 31, 2015
A Question; An Observation, and An Outrage
On the 26th of December, Bernie Sanders sent the following Tweet:
Bernie Sanders @SenSander
"You have families out there paying 6, 8, 10 percent on student debt but you can refinance your homes at 3 percent. What sense is that?"
The question: Can Senator Sanders really be so economically illiterate?
Senator, loans backed by assets have lower rates because they are lower risk. If you default on your mortgage, they bank can take the house. If you default on your student loan, can the government confiscate your brain?
The Observation
I saw an article the other day reposted on Facebook from the liberal online site www.manymanyadventures.com entitled, "The Top 7 Countries To Move To If Donald Trump Becomes President".
Here is the list:
Federal prosecutors have decided not to press criminal charges against two former executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs who were accused of manipulating the agency's hiring system for their own gain. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said Thursday it has declined a referral from the VA inspector general for criminal prosecution of Diana Rubens and Kimberly Graves. The inspector general said in a report this fall that Rubens and Graves forced lower-ranking regional managers to accept job transfers against their will. Rubens and Graves then stepped into the vacant positions themselves, keeping their pay while reducing their responsibilities. Rubens had been earning $181,497 as director of the Philadelphia regional office for the Veterans Benefits Administration, while Graves earned $173,949 as leader of the St. Paul, Minnesota, regional office. Before taking the regional jobs, Rubens was a deputy undersecretary at the VA's Washington headquarters, while Graves was director of VBA's 14-state North Atlantic Region. Rubens and Graves were accused of obtaining more than $400,000 in questionable moving expenses through a relocation program for VA executives, the inspector general's report said. The U.S. Attorney's office said it has "referred the matter to the VA for any administrative action that is deemed appropriate." Rubens and Graves were demoted in November, but their demotions were rescinded this month after a paperwork mix-up. The VA has said it will reissue the demotions after the problem is resolved.
In a conversation with a friend, I predicted this would happen. I wish I had written about it in this blog at the time. So they were demoted? Big deal! They should have been fired and sent to prison!!! It has also been reported that the government can't do anything to recover the $400,000 these two embezzled and will probably eventually be permitted to retire with all their benefits.
This is like something from a Third World Banana Republic - there is no rule of law in America anymore.
Bernie Sanders @SenSander
"You have families out there paying 6, 8, 10 percent on student debt but you can refinance your homes at 3 percent. What sense is that?"
The question: Can Senator Sanders really be so economically illiterate?
Senator, loans backed by assets have lower rates because they are lower risk. If you default on your mortgage, they bank can take the house. If you default on your student loan, can the government confiscate your brain?
The Observation
I saw an article the other day reposted on Facebook from the liberal online site www.manymanyadventures.com entitled, "The Top 7 Countries To Move To If Donald Trump Becomes President".
Here is the list:
7. Ecuador
6. Bahrain
5. New Zealand
4. Germany
3. Luxembourg
2. Singapore
2. Singapore
1. Switzerland
These type articles and "I'm moving" claims always make me laugh. All are pretty nice places to be sure but there are just a couple problems. One is most Americans can't speak a foreign language and 6 of these 7 are non-English speaking countries. People speak English there but it isn't the first language. Good luck Yank!
The other is most Americans have never lived outside the U.S. or even traveled to a foreign country (No, an all inclusive week at Sandals in Jamaica doesn't count) nor do they even have a passport. I'd also be willing to bet they couldn't pick out any of these countries on a world map.
No, none of these people ever actually leave the country but we can still hope, can't we?
The Outrage
US Attorney declines prosecution of former VA execsPublished
December 29, 2015 Associated Press http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/29/us-attorney-declines-prosecution-former-va-execs.html
Federal prosecutors have decided not to press criminal charges against two former executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs who were accused of manipulating the agency's hiring system for their own gain. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said Thursday it has declined a referral from the VA inspector general for criminal prosecution of Diana Rubens and Kimberly Graves. The inspector general said in a report this fall that Rubens and Graves forced lower-ranking regional managers to accept job transfers against their will. Rubens and Graves then stepped into the vacant positions themselves, keeping their pay while reducing their responsibilities. Rubens had been earning $181,497 as director of the Philadelphia regional office for the Veterans Benefits Administration, while Graves earned $173,949 as leader of the St. Paul, Minnesota, regional office. Before taking the regional jobs, Rubens was a deputy undersecretary at the VA's Washington headquarters, while Graves was director of VBA's 14-state North Atlantic Region. Rubens and Graves were accused of obtaining more than $400,000 in questionable moving expenses through a relocation program for VA executives, the inspector general's report said. The U.S. Attorney's office said it has "referred the matter to the VA for any administrative action that is deemed appropriate." Rubens and Graves were demoted in November, but their demotions were rescinded this month after a paperwork mix-up. The VA has said it will reissue the demotions after the problem is resolved.
In a conversation with a friend, I predicted this would happen. I wish I had written about it in this blog at the time. So they were demoted? Big deal! They should have been fired and sent to prison!!! It has also been reported that the government can't do anything to recover the $400,000 these two embezzled and will probably eventually be permitted to retire with all their benefits.
This is like something from a Third World Banana Republic - there is no rule of law in America anymore.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Bernie, Hillary or The Donald?
Who do you think best knows how to create jobs? Socialist Bernie Sanders who believes there is an actual choice to be made between the number of different types of deodorants there are on grocery store shelves and feeding hungry children? Hillary Clinton who believes she should take oil company profits? Or Wharton School of Business graduate (arguably the top B-school in the world) and self-made billionaire Donald Trump? Trump has created more successful businesses - let alone jobs - than the total number of jobs Sanders and Clinton have created combined.
If you actually have to contemplate your answer, we are in bigger trouble than I thought.
If you actually have to contemplate your answer, we are in bigger trouble than I thought.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Pressing Hillary on Economics
A significant weakness for Hillary Clinton, if only someone will force her to reveal it, is her lack of understanding of economics. Certainly, the voters won't be able to rely on the media to ask her to explain her economic views because they are under the same misconceptions that the candidate is so it will be up to her potential rivals during the primary race and then during the general election.
Hillary's economic ignorance is typified by her statement regarding record oil company profits. In 2007 she said, "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence." This has a very populist appeal for many but it begs some very important questions.
First, "From whom would you be taking those profits Mrs Clinton?" Apparently, she and many others believe there is some evil "1 per center" named Mr. Exxon or Mr. Mobil. The reality is that those profits would be taken from the pension funds of ordinary Americans - teachers, firefighters, etc. and the IRAs and 401(k)s of hard working Americans who are doing the right thing and trying to save for their own retirement.
The next question is, "If companies don't make a profit, why would they continue to operate?" I don't know if she has thought this through or not but the answer is they would for a short while but eventually they would not. Companies exist to make profits. They do other things too but those are just secondary benefits to society that are made possible by the existence of profits. Take away profits, lose jobs, goods, services, taxes just to name a few things.
Perhaps Hillary meant just excess profits so let's assume that to be the case. So who determines what excess means? People who believe in capitalism and free-market economics know that the market determines the price of goods and services and ultimately the profits a business receives. Those on the left like Mrs Clinton might believe otherwise but belief isn't fact.
There are other problems with Hillary's economic plan. To help shine a spotlight on them, one of her opponents needs to ask, "Don't excess profits serve some good?" To this she would certainly answer, "No. Excess profits are unfair." or some other such drivel. Here again she would be wrong because she is focusing on fairness which is misguided. The truth is excess profits serve a very important role in the market. When excess profits exist, other companies enter the market to try to take some of those profits away. Further, it encourages the development of alternative products and alternative technologies because they are suddenly affordable. The result is lower prices and greater choices for consumers. Reality bears this out. During the period where there were so-called excess oil profits, market forces drove hydraulic fracturing technology that started the oil boom in the Bakken Shale fields of North Dakota, caused the price of oil to plummet and led to the United States becoming the world's leading producer of natural gas. That is the free market at work. By contrast, the left gave us Solyndra.
Lastly, someone needs to ask Hillary, "What is the model for a government "fund" to do something?" "The Social Security Trust Fund?" Yeah, that inspires confidence.
Hillary's economic ignorance is typified by her statement regarding record oil company profits. In 2007 she said, "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence." This has a very populist appeal for many but it begs some very important questions.
First, "From whom would you be taking those profits Mrs Clinton?" Apparently, she and many others believe there is some evil "1 per center" named Mr. Exxon or Mr. Mobil. The reality is that those profits would be taken from the pension funds of ordinary Americans - teachers, firefighters, etc. and the IRAs and 401(k)s of hard working Americans who are doing the right thing and trying to save for their own retirement.
The next question is, "If companies don't make a profit, why would they continue to operate?" I don't know if she has thought this through or not but the answer is they would for a short while but eventually they would not. Companies exist to make profits. They do other things too but those are just secondary benefits to society that are made possible by the existence of profits. Take away profits, lose jobs, goods, services, taxes just to name a few things.
Perhaps Hillary meant just excess profits so let's assume that to be the case. So who determines what excess means? People who believe in capitalism and free-market economics know that the market determines the price of goods and services and ultimately the profits a business receives. Those on the left like Mrs Clinton might believe otherwise but belief isn't fact.
There are other problems with Hillary's economic plan. To help shine a spotlight on them, one of her opponents needs to ask, "Don't excess profits serve some good?" To this she would certainly answer, "No. Excess profits are unfair." or some other such drivel. Here again she would be wrong because she is focusing on fairness which is misguided. The truth is excess profits serve a very important role in the market. When excess profits exist, other companies enter the market to try to take some of those profits away. Further, it encourages the development of alternative products and alternative technologies because they are suddenly affordable. The result is lower prices and greater choices for consumers. Reality bears this out. During the period where there were so-called excess oil profits, market forces drove hydraulic fracturing technology that started the oil boom in the Bakken Shale fields of North Dakota, caused the price of oil to plummet and led to the United States becoming the world's leading producer of natural gas. That is the free market at work. By contrast, the left gave us Solyndra.
Lastly, someone needs to ask Hillary, "What is the model for a government "fund" to do something?" "The Social Security Trust Fund?" Yeah, that inspires confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)