Holidays

Hope everyone has enjoyed their Christmas. I'll try to get back to blogging regularly starting with new year ... Thanks for your patience.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Economy and Religion: Who Do We Trust?

This article puts a very different perspective on our economic woes. It is by Kendall Wingrove, and it is found here.

Perhaps the challenge in the credit crunch and economic downturn lies not in our politicians, but in ourselves.

To be sure, federal policymakers in the executive and legislative branches have outraged taxpayers. The so-called experts have repeatedly dropped the ball or turned a blind eye to difficulties until they've exploded into crises.

The shortcomings of the public sector are matched by bad judgment and, yes, even corruption in the private sector. ...

But as we resent some in the executive suites, and point our fingers at the pork-barrel politicians who build bridges to nowhere, it's important to remember they aren't much different than many Americans who are fellow travelers on the road to bankruptcy.

For decades, too many have lived beyond their means. Consumers buy items they can't afford and pile up debts they are unable to pay. The concept of sacrifice is largely ignored. In the ceaseless quest to acquire more toys, instant gratification trumps patience.

Then he ends his article with this:

Instead of legislating, taxing and spending our way out of this mess, it's time to realize that the solution has been around for 2,000 years.

While we drown in debt and beg for bailouts, Jesus offers a peace that can calm the storms of life. In John 14:6 in the Bible, he said: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Earlier in the book of John, it chronicles how Jesus went to Jerusalem and found men around the temple selling cattle, sheep and doves and others sitting around exchanging money. He drove them from the sacred area, scattering the coins of the money changers and overturning their tables.

According to Jesus, a person's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions. The real value is found in a person's soul. The day of reckoning has arrived, and all must ask: Does the almighty dollar merit worship, or is it in God that we trust?

A new occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue might make a difference. But let's have the audacity to hope that Americans are able to change. Yes we can.

It has been some time since I have heard anybody in the general media suggest that personal responsibility is important (and an invitation to turn toward God, also). Ben Franklin, in his autobiography, outlined 13 virtues (here), among them can be found:

Temperance

Frugality

Industry

Moderation

Rarely is temperance spoken of anymore. Moderation is almost unknown. Industry tends to be avoided. Frugality is scarce, almost never voluntary. Perhaps as Americans we need to pause and examine ourselves.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Economy: The Shrinking Pool

Mark Landler and David Kirkpatrick writing in the New York Times about the frenzy at the Treasury Department, see it here. This part of the opening:

When the government said it would spend $700 billion to rescue the nation’s financial industry, it seemed to be an ocean of money. But after one of the biggest lobbying free-for-alls in memory, it suddenly looks like a dwindling pool.

...

Of the initial $350 billion that Congress freed up, out of the $700 billion in bailout money contained in the law that passed last month, the Treasury Department has committed all but $60 billion. The shrinking pie — and the growing uncertainty over who qualifies — has thrown Washington’s legal and lobbying establishment into a mad scramble.

The Treasury Department is under siege by an army of hired guns for banks, savings and loan associations and insurers — as well as for improbable candidates like a Hispanic business group representing plumbing and home-heating specialists. That last group wants the Treasury to hire its members as contractors to take care of houses that the government may end up owning through buying distressed mortgages.

The lobbying frenzy worries many traditional bankers — the original targets of the rescue program — who fear that it could blur, or even undermine, the government’s effort to stabilize the financial system after its worst crisis since the 1930s.

This is predictable. Has there ever been a large amount of money that did not attracted the honest, the beggar, as well as the thieves and robbers? Frederic Bastiat, a nineteenth century French economist, pointed out that "Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone."

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Economy: More on the Auto Bailout

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman magazine, and has plenty to say about the bailout of the auto companies. Here's one of the points (which can be found here):

What is so irritating about this story is how old it seems. The Japanese car makers have been accurately anticipating the preferences of American car buyers for quite a while. In the 1980s, after Chrysler won loan guarantees from Congress, the Japanese were so good at serving this market that the Detroit firms implored President Reagan to grant them “breathing space” against the foreign competition so they could catch up. In one of his most egregious betrayals of his stated free-market principles ... Reagan demanded that the Japanese “voluntarily” restrain their exports to the United States . . . or else. They did so.

This puts the current appeal for rescue into perspective. Yes, the government is partly at fault for the companies’ woes, and the general economy is flagging. But the company mangers and union leaders are hardly blameless. In any event, it shouldn’t be made the taxpayers problem. (The emphasis is my own.)

Later in the article Richman points out:

What gets lost in the debate is the fact that either the government or the market is going to determine who gets access to scarce resources. Capital devoted to making cars can’t be go into making anything else. So whether Congress gives or lends the money to the Detroit firms or simply guarantees repayment of private loans, it deprives other entrepreneurs of capital needed for their projects. That means consumers won’t get to enjoy the fruits of those still-born ventures that die for lack of resources. That’s a real cost of government intervention, but since it is unseen, it isn’t counted in most discussions of the proposed bailout.

What if I want to start a little business, or my neighbor does, the resources that go to the support of Detroit won't go to my neighbor or myself. And if it is extracted through taxes, grudgingly, then my freedom goes with it.
Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Post Election: Some People In Mourning

On one of the roads I travel when coming home from work this flag was hung out. Curious, I went and talked to the owner. He says that November 4, 2008 is "the day America began to die." He didn't have any hope for our government (although he was very pleasant to talk to, a good natured fellow).

I hope he's wrong.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Business: Another Reason to Oppose the Bailout of Automakers

The idea that the bailout of American automakers is another handout to big business is one reason to oppose it. But another reason, more subtle, but maybe more important, is displayed in Congress' demands before bailout approval. From Reuters there is this:

Congressional leaders agreed on Thursday to give Detroit automakers until next month to make their case for a rescue but demanded that GM, Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Co show they have business plans that can keep them out of bankruptcy.

...

The restructuring plans will have to show how management and labor are making concessions in order to clinch the government rescue portrayed by automakers as the only alternative to bankruptcy and massive job losses.

Or, in other words, Congress is now an expert on business management. Companies don't usually make plan to get into bankruptcy, unless it will get them largesse from the government. Not only will Congress attempt to save the economy (with other people's money), they think they can manage each and every part of it also.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Economy: A Simple Argument by Boudreaux

Sometimes the simple arguments are the ones overlooked. Here's one from (found here) from Donald Boudreaux:

[R]esources given by government to these corporations must be taken from somewhere else. Government cannot conjure billions of dollars of resources out of thin air.

The number of different places from which these resources will be taken is large and spans a continent. So it's easy to overlook the fact that each of many productive firms from across the country will, as a result of this bailout, pay more for steel, machine tools, fuel, and other inputs they use in production. These other firms will contract their operations; they'll employ fewer workers; they'll produce less output.

The bailout might well save GM, Ford, and Chrysler. If so, politicians will celebrate it as "successful." But that success – which will be easy to see and capture on video tape – will likely really be an economic failure because of the resulting (if hard to see) contracted economic activity throughout the economy.

The idea that the government has the ability to assist the economy is false. The government can act like the brakes, but never the engine. If it gives you something, it took something from someone else. Simply put (in the words of von Mises): "Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer."

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Economy: Horsey on the Meltdown

Sometimes David Horsey hits the bull's-eye. You can find this one here.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Politics: Where's the Watchdogs?

After the election I have been going through a "political detox," avoiding the news, and the internet, the emails ... It was going to last until Thanksgiving. But I couldn't let this one pass. It is from washingtonpost.com and by Amit R. Paley (and it can be found here):

In the six weeks since lawmakers approved the Treasury's massive bailout of financial firms, the government has poured money into the country's largest banks, recruited smaller banks into the program and repeatedly widened its scope to cover yet other types of businesses, from insurers to consumer lenders.

Along the way, the Bush administration has committed $290 billion of the $700 billion rescue package.

Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

While I'm not completely sure what "committed" means, it sounds like they have given out nearly half of the $700 billion, and it reminds me of the quote from P. J. O'Rourke: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

Somewhere we have to "just say no." If we allow congress to keep handing money out, with or without oversight, we are sunk. Am I working just so congress can hand out money to their friends?

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Elections: Voter Fraud

Every time we go to vote there are stories of election fraud, or how poor the voting system is, like these comments from a blog I subscribe to:

I was shocked by how dysfunctional the whole process was. I didn't have to show ID. I just told them my name and they found my name on a roster and I initialed next to it. When I was actually voting it was marking bubbles on a scantron sheet. ... it would be quite easy to "adjust" the ballot box thing so that the incorrect bubbles are marked without the marker knowing an error was made. The wording on the ballot, especially for all the various propositions was also very confusing and often times quite biased, either for or against a proposition. I can totally see how older or uneducated people could be confused by the whole process. I know I was and I don't consider myself to be too old nor too uneducated. After I was done marking the scantron, I wandered around trying to find out what I was supposed to do with my ballot. I finally found a guy at a table who said he would take it. I gave it to him and that was that. As I walked out of the building ... I realized that I have no idea if my vote will actually be counted. ...

So as I was driving to work I didn't feel good about doing my civic duty. I felt anxious because I didn't trust the whole process at all. ... There has to be a better way to vote.

Several years ago when I heard murmurings like this I decided to volunteer to sit at the polls, to see how fair they were. The first two or three times I offered to help I was passed over, as they likely had enough people. Then one year the County Clerk's office sent a notice for asking me to help. This happened to be the first year that my state used electronic voting machines. There was a training session, and then I had to show up to the polls on election day.

The point I'm driving towards is this: the elections are as fair, in my view, as humanly possible. No, they are not perfect. Yes, there are sometimes minor errors, but the elections are fair, and those involved try to do the best job possible. Sometimes I hear a call for more technology to be used, but that won't necessarily help. What is the best solution is for people to get involved, find out what goes on in the election process, see what safeguards are in place, and if they have ideas to share them with election officials (in between the elections please, not in the middle of one). Mostly, quit your belly-achin'. Unfounded doubts and murmurings about the election system do nothing except keep people from going to the polls.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Economics: Sheldon Richman Talks About the S-Word

This showed up Friday at the FEE website

So the S-word has surfaced in the presidential campaign. One candidate accuses the other candidate of being a socialist because he would raise taxes on the wealthy while "cutting taxes" for, among others, workers who pay no income taxes. The accused laughs it off, saying next he'll be called a communist for sharing his toys in kindergarten. (Of course, then he was sharing his own toys.) Meanwhile, the first candidate -- the one hurling around the "socialism" charge -- says if elected he'll buy up shaky mortgages and send checks to people who pay no income taxes so they can get medical insurance.

I'm beginning to understand how Alice felt.

This is as weighty as political campaigns get in America. Those with an appetite for hearty political debate are suffering the pains of malnutrition, which nothing short of nightly doses of "The Daily Show" can relieve.

As for the S-word, certain distinctions are worth maintaining. As Ludwig von Mises noted, socialism and interventionism are different beasts. Strictly speaking, a (state) socialist longs for the abolition of the market, free exchange, money, and private ownership of one's labor and the means of production. Central planning of all production would take the market's place. The interventionist "merely" longs to distribute some of the fruits of the market according to his own high-minded predilections.

Today no one is calling for the nationalization of anything.

Well, except for the banks.

And the insurance companies. But nothing else.

Ok, the auto companies too. But that's it. The rest of the market would remain in operation. I mean it.

...

What's so funny about the "socialism" charge is that if we were to rid the government of all wealth transfers, there would hardly be anything left. It's what government does. It's built in, and the progressive income tax is not the only culprit. Under a flat tax some people would pay no taxes -- there's always a zero bracket, or personal exemption -- and those who earn more would pay more dollars than those who earn less. Assuming everyone gets the same government "services," we have to conclude that the richer subsidize the poorer. The only way out of this would be a head tax, but that's not going to happen.

The rest of it is here. Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Politics: Boudreaux on politicians

Cafe Hayek is a blog that I visit often. Several economists post there, among them is Donald Boudreaux. Here is part of what he had to say today.

I can no more imagine myself behaving as a successful politician behaves -- kissing babies in public; telling strangers that I feel their pain; assuring strangers that I'm to be trusted to spend their money more wisely than then will spend it -- than I can imagine myself being a mosquito or a venus fly trap. It is simply inconceivable that any decent human being would behave in ways that the typical politician behaves.

And yet, so many people -- so many decent people -- believe in (or at least crave, child-like) secular salvation through secular saviors. It's no surprise, then, that persons unashamed to act deceitfully and disingenuously crawl out from under their rocks to pose as saviors.

We need to expect more out of our politicians. More morals, more honesty, more consistancy. Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Government: My View of How the Law Should Look at Marriage

Here is a further explanation of why government shouldn't even touch marriage.

Marriage as an institution could be looked at in this way: Instead of a "secular right," it should be a religious rite. (Please note the difference in spelling.) This would remove it from any legal standing, and it would no longer be a concern of government. There would be no privileges bestowed for marriage, except within religious organizations, which individuals are free to join, or not. Nobody's civil rights would be infringed upon as no rights would be granted by the government ... it just would not be any of the governments business. As long as the government controls the institution of marriage then different groups, with different agendas, will continually fight to write the rules. It will be a never-ending battle.

I want to be clear that this is my view. If there is any flaw in it, then it comes from my own muddle-headed thinking. Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Religion: The View of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on same-sex marriage

It can be found here.

For a long time my thought has been, "Why is government even licensing marriage? Why do we need official permission to perform a religious ceremony?" While the Church of Jesus Christ, of which I am a member, is taking a different approach, I see many positive aspects to what they are doing. Here are some points in the video.

• Approach the issue in a sensitive manner, "our approach must always be with respect for others, and their positions and opinions."
• Even if we disagree we still must follow the Savior, whose "central message ... is to love all our brothers and sisters."
• "We can vigorously promote our beliefs and practices, we can do so with great conviction, and also with great love." (emphasis added)
• Again, he emphasizes "the need for love, compassion, and humility as we move forward in this important cause. This is especially true for families in the wards you attend who face special challenges as a result of this issue." (emphasis added)

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Economy: These kids understand free trade!

History: It's Been Tried Before

Here's a few words from an old book titled Fiat Money Inflation In France. It's on France's financial troubles around the time of the French Revolution. The author is Andrew Dickson White, and you can find a PDF copy here, or just google it, there are several resources that have it. Anyway, it mirrors our time; here's a quote from the beginning:

Early in the year 1789 the French nation found itself in deep financial embarrassment: there was a heavy debt and a serious deficit.

The vast reforms of that period ... were a temporary evil financially. There was a general want of confidence in business circles; capital had shown its proverbial timidity by retiring out of sight as far as possible; throughout the land was stagnation.

Statesmanlike measures, careful watching and wise management would, doubtless, have ere long led to a return of confidence, a reappearance of money and a resumption of business; but these involved patience and self-denial, and, thus far in human history, these are the rarest products of political wisdom. Few nations have ever been able to exercise these virtues ...

There was a general search for some short road to prosperity: ere long the idea was set afloat that the great want of the country was more of the circulation medium ...

France at that time was not using fiat money. For us here in the U.S. we are already using "inconvertible paper money made legal tender by a government decree." But the idea is still very similar to what happened in France; those in the government wanted an injection of money to stimulate the economy, not "patience and self-denial." Or, in other words, Congress wants to continue to spend, spend, spend, and have the taxpayers pay the bill.

I will write more about White's book in later posts, along with some thoughts on inflation. Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Economy: What the Bailout Looks Like to the Bankers

Here's a cartoon from David Horsey. Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Politics: Kling on "Other People's Money"

Arnold Kling is saying exactly what doesn't need to be heard ... but thankfully he is saying it. Here's a quote from the end of his comments:

Reading the news stories about how Secretary Paulson plans to implement the bailout, it seems as though the same people will be in charge of the money. Print some new business cards, change the logo on the front from "Goldman Sachs" to "U.S. Treasury," and everything else continues as it was. It's just that it becomes a lot more difficult for ordinary people to opt out of using the elite's money management services.

Here's the rest.

This is why I didn't want the Bailout. As Lord Acton said:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

While money isn't completely synonymous with power, the power to plunder the taxpayer in behalf of the banks and investment houses is a very corrupting influence. What the government can and cannot do needs to be brought under strict limits again.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Humor: Something We Can Really Believe In!

I found this over at woot shirt. Funny thing is that I'd rather vote for this ticket.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Politics: Burned by the Republicans

In Utah, where I live, we are known as a "the reddest red state." We certainly get passed over during campaign time because it is always assumed that we're in-the-bag for the Republicans. With our two Senators (both Republican), and three Representatives (two Republican, one Democrat), three-out-of-five of our Congressmen voted for the Bailout bill. The Democrat is one of the "no" votes. That leaves three of four Republicans who don't know how to protect the taxpayers from an overreaching federal government. Is it time to look for a third party?

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Economy: Frozen Credit Markets?

Don Boudreaux writes at Cafe Hayek about the "frozen credit markets" which sent his eleven-year-old son a credit card offer (here). He writes:

Thomas is eleven. And while his credit is pretty good with his mother and me, I'm very impressed that he's managed to establish his credit creds so firmly with a company that, if there's truth in today's told tale, has scant amounts money to lend.

In looking over this offer of credit to my pre-pubescent son, I see that Thomas Macaulay Boudreaux's qualifications for this generous offer seem to be the fact that he has a mailing address and a frequent-flyer number with a major airline.

All those scary stories from the Congressmen and Congresswomen should be told around the campfire, not in the legislature while they're grabbing at taxpayer money.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Politics: The rush to pass the President's Bailout by those who not long ago were ready to Impeach him

Here's a question: Why is it that so many commentators and opponents of the President, the ones who have accused the him of lying about Iraq, saying he duped us into an unnecessary war, suddenly believe him about the need for $700 billion or the economy comes to a standstill? Not only do they believe him, they are willing to swiftly pass his legislation (only attaching their pet interests to the bill), handing him our money, and the power to distribute it (through his Secretary) as he sees fit to, and have the audacity to tell us we need to trust them. No, I don't trust them at all!

I have had to trust the President over the war in Iraq because he is privy to information that I'm not. But economic principles are not hidden, they are not secret. The moment anybody tells me that trusting them is necessary, and at the same time asking me to open my wallet wider so they can pick from it, the self-defense mechanisms kick in. The politicians have used nothing but scare-tactics, telling the public that the economy will grind to a halt if this legislation doesn't pass. What is more likely is that if there was more time to examine this Americans would mount to great of an opposition to this foolish legislation.

Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com

Gratitude

A great amount of gratitude is due to the President and his staff over this economic bailout plan submitted to Congress. Gratitude is also due to Congress for following the President's lead and considering the bailout. (As of this writing the Senate has passed the bill, it will, apparently, go to the House this Friday.) This recognition is not because I agree with the bailout; the bailout was a rotten idea from the start. No, I do not want the bailout. The thanks are due for pulling me out of my inertia. I will no longer sit around watching the news, watching Congress plunder the taxpayers, watching them employ scare tactics to justify a bad solution to a mess they are responsible for in the first place.

What will I do? Right now my plans are to continue studying, begin writing (ergo this blog), and use whatever influence I can build to make sure Congress never tries anything this absurd and asinine again.

When I first heard of the President's $700 billion request I was dumbstruck. Something so audacious and bold almost needs to be applauded. It is tantamount to an economic coup d'etat. It's a mugging on a grand scale. Even Hollywood probably hadn't imagined something as fearless as this.

So, again, thank you Mr. President. Thank you Congress.

As to this blog I will try to use it intelligently. There no plans to rant and rave, although that may happen occasionally. My hope is to find principles that are worthy of notice, and ideas that encourage thought, and then display them in such a manner that will entice readers to adopt them as their own. Subjects will be anything that interests me, but will mostly focus on politics, economics, history, and occasionally religion. Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.com