The line between failure and success is
so fine that we scarcely know when we pass it:
so fine that we are often on the line and do not know it.
Elbert Hubbard
Image of the Day: Ethanol vs. Food
 |
| Courtesy of Smart Fuel Future HT Carpe Diem |
Reason's Nanny of the Month: Nov. 2013
Why Harry Reid Went Nuclear--and Why Obama Wanted It
Obama is trying to pack the DC court, and there's a basic rule of law issue why the GOP has been worried about the DC court: it has to do with administrative pushing the envelope in terms of exercising its politically motivated discretion. But before proceeding, let us look at the bugaboo of the alleged GOP stonewalling of Obama's nominations:
 |
| Courtesy of JudicialNominations.org |
As many have noted, even those who oppose judicial filibusters, Reid was fine with Democratic filibusters of George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees. He couldn’t endure the turn-around...Judicial emergencies have increased 90 percent since 2006, and the vacancies with nominees have declined from 60 percent to 47 percent. Yet rather than attend to filling those vacancies, Obama and Reid are focused on adding three more judges to the already seriously underworked and overstaffed DC Circuit. That speaks volumes, of course, about what their agenda is. As I wrote yesterday, the DC Circuit’s docket is mostly about challenges to administrative decisions. Judges in such cases have considerable discretion about whether or not to defer to the judgment of those agencies. If you want to rule by executive diktat, as Obama plainly does, you’ll want “your people” on that court, deferring to “your people” at EPA, HHS, OSHA, the FEC, the IRS, and so on down the line. Let the folks out in the country wait a little longer to get justice.Facebook Corner
LFC commenting on the Libertarian Republic's rebuttal of Pope Francis' anti-capitalist rhetoric.
Read the declaration. It's like, seventy pages. It barely talks about Capitalism at all. When it does it uses the term to refer to a very general sense of the corporate government partnership and not to the actual definition of Capitalism. The government incited media will use this declaration against the free market but the declaration is not against the free market. Read it so you will be able to counter the government media point by point. Don't just assume that the media is correctly interpreting what he said.
Will the progressive trolls stop bashing corporations? The economic illiteracy is staggering. In laissez-faire capitalism, we don't care about the nature of the producer. The issue with corporatism is NOT the supplier but THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT. For all the nonsense about Citizens United, keep in mind for-profit corporations are not responsible for multi-asset bubbles, government subsidies and policies encouraging risky mortgages, etc. Bottom line: corporations, like any other business, cannot force you to buy their goods and services. Politicians shouldn't bribe them with tax breaks, and no bailouts, PERIOD! A corporation can't elect a corrupt politician. I've pointed out elsewhere, the popes have bashed capitalism AND socialism for over a century. The issue they have is that capitalists seem motivated by greed--not property per se. I do think they see it in zero-sum terms. I don't think Warren Buffett or Bill Gates are motivated by greed, but by other things like the challenge of business success, their legacy, etc. Buffett is working long after most people have retired; he lives in a regular house, a functional, nondescript car, etc. He could live a luxurious retirement of private jets, 5-star hotels and restaurants. But he's leaving the bulk of his wealth to a philanthropy.
This is in a Tom Woods thread where one discussant asks about the deflation bugaboo:
What exactly is the downside of "deflation"? Keynesians speak of it as if it were an outbreak of Yersinia pestis. Who gets hurt if prices *uniformly* drop?
Well, technically, it's the reverse of the effects of inflation, where the lender loses to borrowers, whom pay back in cheaper dollars. So, for example, if you have to find a new job, you may have to take a pay cut although you still have to make the same mortgage and car payments--they don't shrink with your pay. So the idea is your payments are increasing in real vs. nominal dollars, you have fewer discretionary dollars to spend or invest. Lenders gain in the sense if they took possession of your house, they could only get the current market price for the house, which is likely far less. Take the banks, especially if they weren't diversified--say, lending mostly to farmers (new equipment, seeds, whatever). Farm prices fall below projections, farmers go belly-up, can't pay off their loans, and the banks with a number of bad loans also go belly-up. Say, this leads to a cascading effect on other banks.... In my view, this is a problem that bad government policy exacerbates. Inflation doves like Yellen (the Monetary Felon) think a little inflation is good for the economy, e.g., it reduces the real cost of labor.
(LFC). I've always made this point about family owned stores vs. big box stores. Big box stores are illegal in New York City, there are only family-owned bodegas and pricey supermarkets like Whole Foods. In bodegas, there is no opportunity for advancement: Either you're part of the family and can move up, or you're not and you don't. Not to mention the fact that the bodegas charge about four times as much as Wal-Mart. (Teal)
What is it with all these economically illiterate anti-corporation types? As the vintage Osmond hit goes, "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch." Corporations provide goods and services--often at lower prices. Get this through your heads, trolls: low prices are good; they stretch the dollars, particular those on tight budgets. Wages depend on things like skill sets, productivity and supply and demand. Some of the comments above make good points: in many cases, sweatshops often provide better wages than prevailing wages in the area. And it is appalling to apply our cultural biases, wage policies, etc., in other areas. It is as intellectually dishonest as "progressives" whom seek to prohibit unskilled/inexperienced workers from accepting an initially lower-paying job--thanks for nothing: "progressives" hurt your shot at getting any income. I do wish Ron Paul wouldn't use the term corporatism to describe economic fascism--because unfamiliar people might take it as anti-corporate. Libertarians support voluntary associations like corporations. Here's a quote from Ron Paul: "Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers." You can be a dominant player like WalMart without a corrupt relationship with government: you win by competing for customers, not by using government, say, to handicap the competition.
Tom Woosd published a photo of Bill Gates' bookcase which featured Woods' writeup on the 2008 economic tsunami on the top shelf. I finally got fed up with the Gates-bashing in one thread.
I see the economically illiterate anti-corporate types are active in this thread. The Politics of Envy is so pathetic and intellectually dishonest. Gates was/is a shrewd businessman; Apple didn't want to license its platform and became a niche player. Microsoft, which never published a DOS spreadsheet, quickly dominated the emerging Windows office suite market. This had nothing to do with government meddling on Microsoft's behalf. In fact, Microsoft has been targeted by economics-illiterate antitrust populists. (I have never been affiliated with Microsoft or held Microsoft stock. In fact, when I was an MIS prof, the administration was upset with me because I was using a competitor's COBOL compiler; MS COBOL, which the business school had licensed, at the time did not conform to the new language standard.)
(Cato Institute). "The ACLU of all groups should have no reason to see this as a “difficult choice” or as a conflict of constitutional values. Free speech and expression rights, which extend to the right not to engage in expression on behalf of a cause one deplores, are central constitutional values and the ACLU is the very first organization people turn to to defend them." This deals with a case I covered in the blog some time back, where New Mexico went after Christian photographers whom refused service for a gay couple event.
The anti-liberty standpoint in this thread is morally appalling. Force is not acceptable, PERIOD, even on the basis of political correctness. Personally, I oppose "gay marriage" but I'm not in business to turn down paying customers--I respect their right of discretion. Photographers shouldn't need any reason to turn down a paying gig, any more than, say, Bruce Springsteen turning down a gig at a GOP event. What you "progressive" trolls are advocating is a form of slavery. Do you mean in a free market there isn't a gay-friendly photographer willing to take on a paying gig? I seem to recall the gay couple did find another photographer--but decided to sic the Statist dogs on the principled vendors.
Political Humor: Remy is Back With Another ObamaCare Spoof
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall |
NOTE: I'll resume my series after the New Year. Incidentally, I almost lost the series' namesake yesterday; I've been out in drizzly weather before with my shuffle without incident, but I almost learned the hard way that shuffles aren't waterproof. I'll have to be more careful, because I don't want to spend $45-50 on a replacement.
The Marmalade, "Reflections of My Life"
