Resistance Begins at Ohm!

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Selling your foot to spite your nose.

OK, that is such a mixed metaphor it is non-sense.
But then so is this: USA companies are selling refineries???
Global oil companies are building them elsewhere? And then what, ship it to the US?
OMG, please, someone stop the madness!
If some other country is out there buying refinery products, should we not be all about selling it to them?

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Forget race, sex, religion and disability as reasons for bigotry

We have a new (yet old) act in town this year (2011).

Economic Inequality
Somehow, the prosperous seem to be the root of all evil. And all along, I thought it was envy. Oh wait, it's still envy.

The dialog this year has been ever-more frequently decrying the disparity between them that have and those who have not. Define that however you like; and that is the problem - any definition seems to work in this scheme. This is more than class warfare. Frankly, I find the concept a pointless waste of emotional energy, but that has yet to stop a progressive from bleating in the dark of economic night.

Look, if you are going to beat this sorry drum from centuries past, try pointing out the disparity between oil-rich middle east theocratic oligarchies and just about everyone else in the world. We give them our money because we want their product. It's that simple.

The fact that some people in this country are well-off and some aren't is just a fact of life. The price of stuff is set by the amount of money people who want the stuff are willing to pay. What have our efforts to increase access to home ownership, education and health care by lower income citizens accomplished? Raised the price of homes, education and health care to even higher absurd levels. Taking money away from those with more and giving it to people with less does increase demand - but it also increases cost and results in the same net effect -- the same people are at the bottom. You would think that the number of people with the wealth would decrease, and perhaps it has. But also note that the people with the wealth now have more of the wealth. Conclusion: wealth redistribution has the effect of trickling up, not down. So theoretically, we can perpetuate hate for this minority (the top 1, 2, 5 percent) as long as we like.

If this country wishes to make demons of the well-to-do and rob the rich to pay the poor, it will find the rich departing to more welcoming countries. This applies to corporations as well as individuals. Face it, one doesn't need America to be rich, one needs product. One doesn't need money to develop product, one needs energy and a tolerant environment. Given the means and the venue, the money will follow.

This zero-sum game of wealth-envy and piss on the prosperous is being played out every where from the environmentalists (we'll save the planet when YOU buy/use less) to a spiritual message.

Links to a sample the progressive poor me messages du jour:
Eliminating Inequality is Good for the Soul (or you have lies, damn lies and then there are statistics)
The Upward Mobility Gap  Bipartisanship in 2011? No Chance

A paradigm shift in commodity prices

That means energy, food, minerals and therefore all the stuff that is thereby derived

What the price of gas is doing to American consumers and therefore to the economy

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Suddenly economics is entertainment

This is well produced and entertaining video. Which should start a whole new discussion about education, but I'm not going there.
Fight of the Century at econstories

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Can we solve this problem with more taxes?

Um. NO.
You would have to confiscate every dollar from every person who earns $200,000 or more. Imagine what that would do for the economy? But in any event, what would you do next year? Because obviously, those people would not be working those jobs and making those investments anymore. Let's see, work at 7-11 for $30K or work at Goldman-Sachs for nuthin. No brainer.
Tax Foundation

Fix the spending problem first. Then use additional revenue to PAY DOWN THE DEBT!

Maybe we should have a tax revolt instead of a tea party. Reduce your withholding as much as you can without incurring a penalty. Send the IRS a notice that you are taking the additional amount you owe off of the nation's tab. Too bad we can't send money to the treasury earmarked for debt reduction (not deficit reduction, the debt we already owe). No, you can't keep it, you would have to put it in an escrow account. But hey, interest rates are going up so at least you will be earning some money for the government, right?

Why worry about the debt? Because we are paying interest on it. And the interest, if we keep spending like drunken sailors, will consume the entire annual federal revenue in just a few short years, not decades (somewhere between 2021 and 2041 depending on interest rates).

In 2010, we spent more in interest than we did on Health and Human Services (medicare/medicaid) More than Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, HUD, Justice, DHS, Commerce, Labor, Small Business Admin, Treasury. Combined. In the last 20 years, we have spent $8 trillion just on interest - nice income for other countries.

If Congress stopped all spending today and paid $100 million per day, it would take 389 years to pay off the national debt. And that was in 2010, so it is closer to 500 years now.
Government Gone Wild

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

A debt analogy

So, instead of amassing another $10 trillion in debt over the next decade, we will amass only $7.5 trillion more? As Ron Paul said, whoopee.
My son's analogy: So instead of crashing the plane into the tarmac at a 90 degree angle, we will just crash it at a 70 degree angle instead.

And instead of addressing the spending problem that adds another $trillion to the debt every year, we will whine and threaten and demagogue to no end tax cuts for the wealthy and tax breaks for the richest corporations (picking winners and losers again) which, if we went ahead and did what is suggested, would result in only several billion more in revenue. Why? Because the really wealthy people that are constantly being demonized don't earn the money from income. Therefore income tax increases don't increase affect them. And most people who would be affected aren't pulling wages in the $200,000+ brackets, they are business owners. If the government isn't taking their income (not wages), then it is available to reinvest in the business, thereby improving the economy, increasing the number of wage-earners and therefore income tax revenue. The millionaires and billionaires are not going to be paying any more in income tax - it isn't earned income to begin with. So much for fair share, so much for the "protecting the wealthy" argument, they are all protecting the wealthy by keeping capital gains taxes low and keeping capital expensing and amortization periods favorable. No one pays attention to how the rich are taxed except for the rich, so no one knows it is a completely different system.

Loved these articles from Reason spending-cuts, taxes and revenue
Page 2, taxes and spending
Percent of taxes by income share

Tuesday, August 2, 2011