Hey, it's great that we finally got bin Laden! I guess continuing Bush's War on Terror was not so bad after all!
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Magic Bullets part VIII - The Oxygen Standard
We seem to have reached a stalemate in Washington trying to get a handle on our out-of-control deficits. Is it possible there is a simple way to deal with this and finally find out what our politicians are made of?
I propose we put our government on the “Oxygen Standard”. The Oxygen Standard is similar to the Gold Standard in that dollars are converted into a set quantity of oxygen, only in this case, the dollars are our government deficits or surpluses, and the oxygen is for our government officials to breathe.
Here’s how the Oxygen Standard would work: First, all three branches of government (yes, the court too!) would be housed in airtight chambers which would be locked-down during budget negotiations. If the resulting negotiations yielded a balanced budget, there would be exactly enough oxygen pumped in to balance the breathing needs of all the members. However, if there is a deficit, the same ratio will be reflected in an oxygen deficit being pumped in. Of course, if there is a surplus, extra oxygen will be supplied which would result in a “strategic oxygen reserve” which could be drawn down in times of war or natural disaster.
To make the Oxygen Standard even more real, there will be an additional way government can “tweak” the supply of oxygen during deficits. They could draw down the oxygen supply of future generations by allocating the needs of infants and the unborn for their own breathing consumption. Mass suffocations would eventually result, but government officials could at least spend away and breathe easier.
Any guesses as to how this would play out?
I propose we put our government on the “Oxygen Standard”. The Oxygen Standard is similar to the Gold Standard in that dollars are converted into a set quantity of oxygen, only in this case, the dollars are our government deficits or surpluses, and the oxygen is for our government officials to breathe.
Here’s how the Oxygen Standard would work: First, all three branches of government (yes, the court too!) would be housed in airtight chambers which would be locked-down during budget negotiations. If the resulting negotiations yielded a balanced budget, there would be exactly enough oxygen pumped in to balance the breathing needs of all the members. However, if there is a deficit, the same ratio will be reflected in an oxygen deficit being pumped in. Of course, if there is a surplus, extra oxygen will be supplied which would result in a “strategic oxygen reserve” which could be drawn down in times of war or natural disaster.
To make the Oxygen Standard even more real, there will be an additional way government can “tweak” the supply of oxygen during deficits. They could draw down the oxygen supply of future generations by allocating the needs of infants and the unborn for their own breathing consumption. Mass suffocations would eventually result, but government officials could at least spend away and breathe easier.
Any guesses as to how this would play out?
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The Irony of Keynes
Welcome YouTubers! Scroll down for more blogtoons and commentary. But if you are inclined towards heavier fare, pls try this post: The Irony of Keynes
Thanks for visiting!
Thanks for visiting!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
GE is Right!
You may have seen that GE, despite having a massively profitable year, will pay zero federal income taxes for 2010. That’s right, less than you! And this is the second year in a row. I have no love for GE and its hearty embrace of crony capitalism, but they are doing the right thing by not paying any taxes. How can I say this? Because I believe no business entity should pay taxes, and that includes behemoth GE.
Let me ask you a question: How many people do you think would die of cancer each year if all cancer cells could be somehow trained to start growing on the tip of your nose? Every morning the first thing you would do is look in the mirror and see if you had any cancer. If you saw something, you would immediately have it removed. That would be the end of cancer, right?
The price of runaway government today is like cancer in that it hides undetected until the symptoms begin. By then, it’s often too late. If every citizen woke up every morning and could see the true cost of runaway government on the tips of their noses, they would never allow it to metastasize, and that would be its ultimate demise.
Business taxes are a good example of this disease. The fact is, businesses don’t actually pay taxes. Citizens do. Businesses merely collect taxes and pass the cost along to the next entity in the supply chain until an ultimate “end-user” buys the product and pays the cumulative tax. Economically literate politicians, (an oxymoron) know this full well, but will never end stealth taxes unless forced to because they are a perfect way to ensure that the cancer they caused stays undetected.
Right now in Washington there is an epic battle going on over budgets for this year and next and it makes for great drama on the nightly news. But this tragic play will repeat ad infinitum as long as we allow the true cost of runaway government to stay undetected. Have you seen Paul Ryan and the few other responsible leaders working their tails off trying to treat this cancer? They remind me of lonely sentries on the deck of the Titanic yelling, “ICEBERG! ICEBERG!” to the sleeping passengers and crew. The masses are not listening and the ship is sinking. It’s a noble crusade Rep. Ryan is on, but there may be a more effective way.
Wouldn’t it be better if we just stopped hiding the cost of government and put it all in the open for everyone to see? Wouldn’t it be easier if the interests of voters and taxpayers were automatically aligned with the interests of the responsible members of government? Wouldn’t that be better than trying to convince an indifferent public to somehow care? Why not just pass a law to end stealth taxes once and for all? Why not put an end to business entity taxes, payroll matching taxes, mandates that force businesses to do the collecting, and any chance of a VAT ever getting passed?
All it would take is an itsy bitsy constitutional amendment with one sentence: “All domestic revenues shall be collected directly from individuals.”
The effect of this would of course be higher tax rates on individuals, but the price of goods and services would go down by an equal amount. The net effect overall would be zero. This amendment would cost you nothing.
Would this cure the cancer? Let’s just say you’d be staring the true cost of the runaway government in the face everyday. Would you tolerate it metastasizing? Wouldn’t this amendment be worth working for, and at least campaiging on? Pass this on to the candidate of your choice if you think so.
Oh, and one other thing; small companies like maybe even yours, would have the exact same advantage that giant GE has today when filing taxes!
Let me ask you a question: How many people do you think would die of cancer each year if all cancer cells could be somehow trained to start growing on the tip of your nose? Every morning the first thing you would do is look in the mirror and see if you had any cancer. If you saw something, you would immediately have it removed. That would be the end of cancer, right?
The price of runaway government today is like cancer in that it hides undetected until the symptoms begin. By then, it’s often too late. If every citizen woke up every morning and could see the true cost of runaway government on the tips of their noses, they would never allow it to metastasize, and that would be its ultimate demise.
Business taxes are a good example of this disease. The fact is, businesses don’t actually pay taxes. Citizens do. Businesses merely collect taxes and pass the cost along to the next entity in the supply chain until an ultimate “end-user” buys the product and pays the cumulative tax. Economically literate politicians, (an oxymoron) know this full well, but will never end stealth taxes unless forced to because they are a perfect way to ensure that the cancer they caused stays undetected.
Right now in Washington there is an epic battle going on over budgets for this year and next and it makes for great drama on the nightly news. But this tragic play will repeat ad infinitum as long as we allow the true cost of runaway government to stay undetected. Have you seen Paul Ryan and the few other responsible leaders working their tails off trying to treat this cancer? They remind me of lonely sentries on the deck of the Titanic yelling, “ICEBERG! ICEBERG!” to the sleeping passengers and crew. The masses are not listening and the ship is sinking. It’s a noble crusade Rep. Ryan is on, but there may be a more effective way.
Wouldn’t it be better if we just stopped hiding the cost of government and put it all in the open for everyone to see? Wouldn’t it be easier if the interests of voters and taxpayers were automatically aligned with the interests of the responsible members of government? Wouldn’t that be better than trying to convince an indifferent public to somehow care? Why not just pass a law to end stealth taxes once and for all? Why not put an end to business entity taxes, payroll matching taxes, mandates that force businesses to do the collecting, and any chance of a VAT ever getting passed?
All it would take is an itsy bitsy constitutional amendment with one sentence: “All domestic revenues shall be collected directly from individuals.”
The effect of this would of course be higher tax rates on individuals, but the price of goods and services would go down by an equal amount. The net effect overall would be zero. This amendment would cost you nothing.
Would this cure the cancer? Let’s just say you’d be staring the true cost of the runaway government in the face everyday. Would you tolerate it metastasizing? Wouldn’t this amendment be worth working for, and at least campaiging on? Pass this on to the candidate of your choice if you think so.
Oh, and one other thing; small companies like maybe even yours, would have the exact same advantage that giant GE has today when filing taxes!
Friday, April 1, 2011
Swift Solution
With Louis Farrakhan in the news lately, I thought I'd re-post this tongue-in-cheek Swiftian proposal:
A Modest Proposal
A Modest Proposal
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Libya vs. Iraq - Some Thoughts
Did you know that Chimpanzees and Humans share overwhelming similarities in their genetic makeup? Though the percent varies depending on how deep the data goes, the similarities range from the high 70s to the high 90s. In other words, the similarities greatly outweigh the differences on the genetic level, yet the two are so completely different that no rational person taking a holistic view could mistake a Chimp for a Human. Yet, a top scientist locked in a room with only the two genetic codes in front of him could toil through a majority of the genetic code before finding any significant differences!
The point of this is simply to repeat the ancient observation that little can be understood about the true nature of things by examining their similarities; only by understanding their differences do we really get to know them.
The cartoon I recently posted comparing Libya vs. Iraq is a good example of the futility of focusing on similarities, or for that matter, the petty differences. As many commenters have pointed out, the cartoon, and those who liked it, cannot make a strong enough case that the two conflicts are comparable. Of course, the cartoon is limited to being a caricature of hypocrisy, ignorance and irrational devotion. It is not meant to argue a case that the two conflicts are equivalent. However, the nature of caricature is that it only works through exaggeration and that has resulted in quite the debate among viewers which has shed much heat but little light. (Also some funny stuff and some really nasty stuff too!)
So what do I think? Are these two wars comparable and if not what are the salient differences? For me, they are not comparable actions in their essence. Iraq was about trying to save American lives by enforcing something which came to be known as “The Bush Doctrine”, and Libya is about trying to save non-American lives on one side of a civil war by enforcing something known as UN 1973.
You may agree or disagree with “The Bush Doctrine” and the threats posed by the Iraqi regime, but your representatives in Washington voted for it overwhelmingly and that is what Democracy in a Republic looks like. Deal with it.
As for UN 1973, you may agree or disagree with it, but your representatives in Washington have no say in it whatsoever. That is what Global Totalitarianism looks like. Deal with it.
The point of this is simply to repeat the ancient observation that little can be understood about the true nature of things by examining their similarities; only by understanding their differences do we really get to know them.
The cartoon I recently posted comparing Libya vs. Iraq is a good example of the futility of focusing on similarities, or for that matter, the petty differences. As many commenters have pointed out, the cartoon, and those who liked it, cannot make a strong enough case that the two conflicts are comparable. Of course, the cartoon is limited to being a caricature of hypocrisy, ignorance and irrational devotion. It is not meant to argue a case that the two conflicts are equivalent. However, the nature of caricature is that it only works through exaggeration and that has resulted in quite the debate among viewers which has shed much heat but little light. (Also some funny stuff and some really nasty stuff too!)
So what do I think? Are these two wars comparable and if not what are the salient differences? For me, they are not comparable actions in their essence. Iraq was about trying to save American lives by enforcing something which came to be known as “The Bush Doctrine”, and Libya is about trying to save non-American lives on one side of a civil war by enforcing something known as UN 1973.
You may agree or disagree with “The Bush Doctrine” and the threats posed by the Iraqi regime, but your representatives in Washington voted for it overwhelmingly and that is what Democracy in a Republic looks like. Deal with it.
As for UN 1973, you may agree or disagree with it, but your representatives in Washington have no say in it whatsoever. That is what Global Totalitarianism looks like. Deal with it.
- If you have the time and inclination, here are some older posts you might enjoy:
- The Healthcare Gecko - What we should have done, and still can.
- Obamanomics - Digging holes and filling them up again.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Obamanomics
Economists sometimes use the “dig hole / fill hole” scenario as a way to illuminate a point. John Maynard Keynes, the Guru of Demand Side Economics used the example himself in his writings, though not as a serious remedy for anything, but rather as a springboard for analyzing ways to stimulate employment and demand.
Fast forward to today. Have you been on a road-trip lately? Remarkably, the Obama economic policy appears to be one of digging holes, and then filling them in again. Here’s how it works: First they dig the existing pavement down about 2-3 inches, and then they fill it right back in with 2-3 inches of hot, smelly, new asphalt. The road ends-up almost exactly the way it started, only marginally smoother. Meanwhile, we are all stuck in grid-lock while this make-work proceeds at a union-mandated snail’s pace. No wonder many Americans have given up looking for work entirely and just settle for the 99 weeks of unemployment checks. They can’t possibly drive around and look for work, much less get to their first day on-time!
Tomorrow Obama will announce that he wants to double-down on this losing bet with a new stimulus plan of 50 billion borrowed dollars aimed at, surprise surprise: re-surfacing roads, runways, bridges and tunnels. Is this dude serious?
Now that the idiocy of his economic plan has been revealed by the numbers, Obama himself is dropping like asphalt in the polls. Apparently his support was much like the holes being dug on the roadways: miles wide, but only 2-3 inches deep.
Fast forward to today. Have you been on a road-trip lately? Remarkably, the Obama economic policy appears to be one of digging holes, and then filling them in again. Here’s how it works: First they dig the existing pavement down about 2-3 inches, and then they fill it right back in with 2-3 inches of hot, smelly, new asphalt. The road ends-up almost exactly the way it started, only marginally smoother. Meanwhile, we are all stuck in grid-lock while this make-work proceeds at a union-mandated snail’s pace. No wonder many Americans have given up looking for work entirely and just settle for the 99 weeks of unemployment checks. They can’t possibly drive around and look for work, much less get to their first day on-time!
Tomorrow Obama will announce that he wants to double-down on this losing bet with a new stimulus plan of 50 billion borrowed dollars aimed at, surprise surprise: re-surfacing roads, runways, bridges and tunnels. Is this dude serious?
Now that the idiocy of his economic plan has been revealed by the numbers, Obama himself is dropping like asphalt in the polls. Apparently his support was much like the holes being dug on the roadways: miles wide, but only 2-3 inches deep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)