Thursday, February 14, 2013

Examples

Those on the right to a good job of pointing out that gun control does not reduce gun deaths.  See: Chicago



But they don't do a good job of pointing out how bad democrats' economic ideas are.  If democrats had good economic ideas, then Detroit would still be one of the great cities of the world.  Like it was before the democrats took it over.

While talking to democrats we should make the point, much more often, that if the democrats' polices resulted in good things, then Detroit would still be a great city.

Can you point to a city that went from one of the greatest in the world to a scum-hole after fifty years of near total republican politics?

When someone calls our economic situation caused by the free market, then let them know that the Federal Reserve determines monetary policy and interest rates.  How can we have a free market if a government entity controls money supply and finances?

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

John Galt Day, February 2013

 Many of you claim to support "going Galt," so put your actions where your word are:


In a Friday the 13th speech to supporters in Roanoke, Va., Pres. Obama said, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help…. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Headlines screamed:
"Business Owners Furious at Obama Insult"
"Obama’s "You Didn’t Build That" Enrages Business Community"
"Slap In The Face To Hard-Working Americans"
Mostly it’s been the Conservative pundits, columnists, talk show hosts appropriately incensed, burning up bandwidth and air waves with passionate push-back. "This from a guy who has never run a business!" "This man has lived off tax-payer money his whole life!" "How many businesses has Obama run?" "This man was raised by Marxists and Communists. This proves he hates Capitalism and American Exceptionalism!" 

So far, so good. But living in our 24 Hour Non-Stop News Cycle World, by the time you’re reading this the story could already be ancient history: "Oh! This happened LAST Friday?!"

It doesn’t have to be that way. What if on August 13th,, the "anniversary" of "You Didn’t Do That" Day, business owners of America showed the statists just who John Galt is and declared "John Galt Day", close their business for the day, keep the kids home from school? Starve the Beast of its taxes; the ultimate government groin kick. 

Next day, announce that come September, it will be TWO days. Use FaceBook, Twitter, talk radio, blogs to spread the word, invite others to join. You don’t have to be a major chain or Big Box store to send a crystal clear message. Imagine independent truckers pulling over, shutting down for the day. Mom & Pop stores of all sorts and types lock up andtake the family on a picnic. Notify the MSM: Welcome to the John Galt Day Flash Dance! 

It doesn’t have to be All In, All At Once (and probably wouldn’t). It would more likely start like one of those cool flash mob dances all over the Internet. Watch! I dare you not to smile! And as Milton Friedman once told Walter Williams: Whenever you talk about Freedom, smile!

Sure, the Big Boys will probably take a pass. Best Buy, Bass Pro, Macy’s, Old Navy, Target, Wally World – they’ll be all "biz-as-usual". So what? Every individual can declare his/her own personal John Galt Day. Isn’t everyone basically "in business" for themselves? Aren’t you? Isn’t "the individual the smallest minority"? (Ayn Rand). So, as a "minority business owner, I’m closed in honor of John Galt Day!" 

Think about it:

*"Gone Galt" signs hanging in business windows everywhere!
*Voice Mail message: "Hello, you’ve reached Exceptional Services. We are closed in honor of John Galt Day. We’ll be back tomorrow. Thanks for your business. For more information, read Atlas Shrugged."

Simple. No massive organizing. No herding cats. No moving parts. Literally: a spontaneously combusted Just Do It. A current event silver bullet at Big Government. A gold nugget of Freedom for everyone to see. Or, if you prefer, a bitch-slap response to a Presidential insult.

Call your neighbors! Text your friends! Ask your favorite business places to take the day. Get the local Chamber of Commerce behind it! Show your appreciation giving them your business!
John Galt Day. August 13, 2012. 

Just do it – for Freedom! (And it will feel really, really good!)

Balance the Budget Please

Vox Day posted an email that he received from a liberal.

I'd like to point out a paragraph in particular.
For example, I am a bleeding heart liberal.  If an unfortunate looking soul solicits me, I will do almost anything they ask.  My wife often remarks that I must have a glow that only grifters can see.  At the gas station, when I have parked my electric-only golf-cart sized car to run in and get some chai or tofu, I am often approached by someone with a hard luck story asking if they can have a dollar or two for gas so they can get home to their babies, or back to work, or whatever.  More often than not I fill their tank.  When the local church - not mine, I am not religious - had storm damage and needed donations for a new roof I split my emergency fund and donated timbers I had obtained for a DIY project.  
I can see where the average liberal is a good person, even if he is only a fraction as giving as the author above.   I can appreciate their stated goals of helping the poor and disadvantaged.

We should be able to civilly debate how to go about achieving the goals of improving the lives of everyone. We don't civilly debate.  For example: I've been called things like "arrogant" and "a racist" by liberals in person and never by non-liberals.  And anyone who has read my comment debates from the Huffigton Post knows that most of the liberals there seem to be incapable of disagreeing without using name calling and insults.  We can find evidence of union violence everywhere. Etc.

All that aside, one thing that we should not be debating is having a balanced budget.  It is inconceivable to me how we have gone only 8 years since 1950 with a balanced budget (table 1.1).  That is outright incompetence from both parties.  Why has this been acceptable to anyone?

I understand that it is difficult for a politician to try and make any changes to entitlements.  But in order to balance the budget, entitlements must be changed.

The author of the excerpted email shows us that even though we disagree on what our public policies should be, we can see that our political opponents can be good people.

But we should all agree that the federal budget must be balanced.  This should not be a subject for debate.  Even if we do things that I don't like (and are contrary to freedom and liberty) we need to balance the budget.  Balancing the budget should be the primary focus of our politicians.  Why are they wasting everyones' time on other stuff?


Its fine with me if you want to argue for a more progressive country.  We can have that debate.  But if you want your plan to work, and the country to survive, then propose laws that include balanced budgets.

The debate should be: a progressive vision with a balanced budget or a libertarian or conservative vision with a balanced budget.

Why is the news not full, everyday, with stories pointing out how incompetent our politicians are for being unable to even propose a balanced budget?

Think of the jobs that would be created!

A few excerpts from another Antiplanner post on the stupidity of trains.
Anybody can draw a map, and that map is likely to reflect their own particular preferences. The Antiplanner’s ideal high-speed rail line would connect my home in Camp Sherman, Oregon (population 380) with Cato’s offices in Washington, DC. Of course, I tend to move about every eight or nine years, so by the time the rail line was finished the only potential regular customer would be gone. But just think of the jobs that would be created!
...
Here’s the real problem: America is a two-dimensional place, and we have a 4-million-mile network of highways and streets that allows anyone to get from practically anywhere to practically anywhere else in the contiguous 48 states. Rail lines are one dimensional, and what is worse they serve only selected points on that one-dimensional line. The number of people going from one point served by trains on a line to another point will be a small fraction of the total travelers in any given corridor.

Nor can trains compete with planes, which are not only faster but save money by requiring far less infrastructure. Airlines can respond to changes in travel patterns by altering air routes overnight, but building new rail lines is phenomenally expensive in time, money, and energy. (Rail advocates never mention the energy costs of constructing rail lines, which is typically scores if not hundreds of times greater than any potential annual energy savings from operations.)

Gender Pronouns

At one time "he" was an accepted term for men and women.

I suggest that my fellow bloggers join me in writing "he" where in the past we might have written "he/ she" or "he or she".

Join me in taking a small step towards reclaiming our language.  (And perhaps annoy some feminists.)

Monday, February 11, 2013

Female Employees, The Economy, & Marriage

The Captain recently looked at the feminists who are "East coast, liberal, feminist woman who lives in New York and pines about socio-romantic topics, as well as politics."

He was interested in how successful those women have been in achieving their goals.

His opening disclaimer is very appropriate for this post.
This post is intended to help all women, but primarily women under the age of 30.  I cannot emphasize enough how sincere and honest I am about this statement - this post is intended to help you.  It may not seem it at first, but if you can permit yourself an open mind and hear me through you will see that not only is that my intention, but the post itself will actually prove helpful, especially to younger women.
I want to understand if women favoring work over being housewives is a good idea.  I am not trying to make some point.  I want fill out my thoughts on the subject to see where the holes in my thinking are, and where we end up.

Is having lots of women work outside the home a good idea?

At first it seemed to me that having more women in the workforce is good because it means more workers, and therefore means more competition among employees, and therefore lower wages, and lower prices on goods and services.  More workers should also mean that we have more goods and services produced.

More, and less expensive, goods and services is certainly a good thing.  But that includes more potential workers, which means that their employers need to pay less.  An employer that can easily replace one employee with another need not overpay like an employer who needs to do all that he can to attract good employees.

There is an easy way to determine if our economy has too many potential workers, not enough potential workers, or just the right amount.

If employers give large "signing bonuses," pay for relocation, and offer large salaries to new employees, then we don't have enough potential workers.

On the other hand, if many people who want to work cannot find an employer, then we have too many potential workers.

During WWII many men were not productive workers becasue they were off fighting a war.  At that time more workers were needed.

What is the situation now?

A 7.8% unemployment rate would suggest that their are more potential workers than there are jobs.  This means that employers can hire workers cheaply, and goods and services are cheaper than they would be if there were not enough workers.

Because 7.8% is a high rate of unemployment, we can conclude, from a macroeconomic look at employment numbers, that our employment situation would be improved if more potential workers did not need to have jobs.

Next, let's look at the effects of women workers on the roles of working in married couples.

Years ago a man worked and his wife stayed home and took care of the house and kids.

The work responsibilities for the man would be something like 100% of work at a job, let's call that 100 work units.  He would also need to do some stuff around the house, like mowing, shoveling snow, evicting mice, etc, let's say that that's 15% of the house work.  So that man had 115 works units to take care of.  His wife would then, generally, take care of the other 85% of the house work, 85 work units.

Now many couples have two people work at jobs outside of the house.

The work responsibilities for the man are still 100% of job work.  Unless a part-time job would be acceptable.  He will also need to do more of the house work, to do a more equal amount of housework.  We also hear lots of complaints that men don't do enough around the house.  Let's say that modern men are now expected to do more like 35% of the laundry, cooking and cleaning, etc. So a modern man is expected to do significantly more work than our fathers and grandfathers had to do.  Our wives also work outside the home now.  The last pay discrepancy I heard was that women make 77% of what men do.  More women work part-time, work around school schedules and some stay at home.  Let's say that the average woman does 77 work units outside the home and the remaining 65 inside the home.

With out current dual income lifestyles men need to work 135 work units and women now do 143.
  • from 115 to 135 for the man
  • from 85 to 143 for the woman
I realize that these are nearly useless, made up numbers, but any way you look at it, a woman working means that both she and her husband need to do more work then they would have to if she did not work outside the home.

We could look at the cost of day care, too.  What's the point of making, say, $15 an hour and then paying the daycare $8 for those same hours?  The extra work that you do will gain you a fraction of what you think and for which you pay by having your kids grow up with minimum wage employees raising your kids as much as you do.

***

Before I looked into the subject, I would have said more women working means more goods and services provided at lower costs.  While that is still true, we loose some as a society when women leave the home.

Judgy Bitch isn't thrilled with the idea of women working either here and here.

Free Northerner says that we have the society that feminists demanded.

In exchange for not being dependent on a man you, women, work more, can't find desirable men to marry, are more likely to be single mothers, have given up chivalry, etc.  I don't see where a women, if given the choice, would take our current society over one where they did not think that they needed to work.

Being a housewife was probably not as bad as the feminists claimed.  For example, not doing the dishes or laundry one day and eating a frozen pizza for dinner is not the worst thing, not doing your job outside the home is how you get fired.

Judgy Bitch again:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/07/27/where-women-work/

So, let’s see.  Women found being a housewife so terribly dull and dreary and oppressive that they flocked to the labor market to teach children their alphabet, tend to the sick, fold clothes, care for the elderly, cook food, fetch food, clean house and take care of small children. And that’s just all the ladies who couldn’t find a cushy job organizing a man’s professional life.

Organizing, tending, fetching, wiping noses and asses, cooking and cleaning.
Wow.  Those are some pretty big ambitions.  Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it?  If it’s not the actual JOB that women dislike, since they clearly don’t mind doing those things for OTHER people, what is it that women didn’t like?
Hey feminists, you got what you said that you wanted; when will you stop complaining and making more demands on men?

The Issues on Which I've Changed My Mind

I once thought that it was amusing to say, "I've never changed my mind before. Does it hurt?" - Evil Roy Slade

And that was true for me for quite a while.  I, like my father before me, and his mother before him, was a conservative at birth.

But since then I have changed my mind on a few issues.

Abortion - I was opposed to abortion at first because it is undoubtedly killing people.  But it seems to me that abortion is like heroin, both are bad but should not be illegal, maybe.  If a woman wants to have an abortion, then odds are that kid's life would start well.  On the other hand, that's no excuse to end a life.  In any case I much prefer the company of those who are pro-life.  I suppose that I have not changed my mind on this issue. Abortion is killing the most innocent.

Capitol Punishment - I once favored capitol punishment because people like serial killers and mass murderers should be offed.  But I don't trust the government to competently decide who should be executed.

Border fences - I once favored building a big wall or fence on the boarder with Mexico, becasue we need something to control the boarder.  But when boarder walls were used in the past it was used to keep people in.  The Berlin Wall and the walls around North Korea keep people in.  If the taxes on the rich are doubled, or tippled, to balance the budget (which seems to be what the democrats want), then many people will want to get out.  Any hindrance to the ability to leave should be avoided.  We should have a more streamlined process for legally allowing immigration and deport more who are tax drain.

Foreign intervention - I once favored a strong, over sized, military; who wants to be weak?  But how many of our problems have come from interfering with other countries.  Its not really our business anyway.  Republicans want little government at home, and big government abroad?  Why not arm all citizens with fully automatic weapons like Switzerland?  Rand Paul on the subject.

Gay marriage - I don't now, nor have I ever, cared about what your sexual orientation is.  (Please don't tell me; I don't want to know.)  Gays have existed for more of the history of the world than we have been led to believe (see: ancient Greece and feudal Japan).  Kids are undoubtedly best raised by one man and one woman, but a gay couple is probably better than whatever the modern equivalent of an orphanage is.  I think that the solution is to not have any laws about marriage.  File taxes separately, and have marriages held by whoever wants to perform the non-legally binding ceremony.

I realize that these issues have not been fully thought out, by me, but they are issues on which I have been open to changing my mind.