Posts Tagged government

Book Review: Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt

My rating: 4 of 5 stars
A phenomenal synopsis in economic thought. This is a book that everyone ought to read as informed citizens, allowing us all to make wiser economic decisions versus voting for what “sounds” good. Hazlitt writes so all will understand and does a fantastic job at it. That doesn’t mean it is the most exciting thing you’ve ever read, however. It can be a little dry but remains understandable and clear. Hazlitt’s examples illuminate economic concepts better than most. He is not distracted by the complexity generated by many economists of a discipline that should not be so. This tends to be the issue of many academics and can be seen in the economic learning process. As you advance through economic theory, simple concepts are often discredited and replaced with complex ones creating substantial contradictions. Hazlitt’s observations continue to be relevant 30+ years after the latest edition of this book. We haven’t learned much, apparently. This is one lesson everyone should read.

View all my reviews >>

<iframe src=”http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=busiwealservo-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&md=10FE9736YVPPT7A0FBG2&asins=0517548232″ style=”width:120px;height:240px;” scrolling=”no” marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>

Post to Twitter

Tags: , ,

Cash for Clunkers, another political blunder…

Cash for clunkers is simply another political blunder that economically skews the markets, misplacing resources through malinvestment (Mises’ term) all at the cost of the common tax payer.  Isn’t that what we need? This vid is sweet…

Post to Twitter

Tags: , ,

Our forgetful nature brings Keynes to the economic forefront once again…

Oh Paul… Paul Krugman, our Keynes Reincarnate…  here to influence us to continue walking toward the “Keynesian light”.  I recently read an article by Lilburne from the Ludwig von Mises Institute regarding Paul Krugman’s current influential role in our political economy.  The article is titled “The Second Coming of Keynes” and highlights some interesting points regarding America’s tendency to NOT learn from our experiences.  He states:

Paul Krugman is a devotee of John Maynard Keynes. He’s such a hard core disciple that he was Keyensian when Keynesianism wasn’t cool: the period between the 1970s stagflation, which seemed to disprove Keynesian doctrine, and now, when it is groundlessly renascent due to our society’s stunted memory span.

And what of the years and years of proofing done by classical economists, testing the original ideas of Adam Smith?  Richard Ebeling (former president of FEE) wrote in the Freeman a few years ago:

The classical economists of the eighteenth and nine­teenth centuries had persuasively demonstrated that government intervention prevented the smooth func­tioning of the market. They constructed a body of eco­nomic theory which clearly showed that governments have neither the knowledge nor the ability to direct economic affairs.

…During the Napoleonic wars of the early nineteenth century, many European countries experienced serious inflations as governments resorted to the printing press to fund their war expenditures. The lesson the classical economists learned was that the hand of the government had to be removed from the handle of that printing press if monetary stability was to be maintained.

I will leave the evidence behind these claims to the authors (see their articles and other writings for detail).  Suffice it to say we cannot recall our past with the prudence to understand that the social collectivist movements– no matter the name albeit communism, socialism, or progressivism–  are not effective systems.  We are set to govern ourselves and no individual carries a divine calling as supreme decision maker for the collective (which is interesting considering Marx was anti-religious. I wonder how he assumed his calling?).

Now back to Krugman… as a devout Keynesian disciple, he once stated:

one of the high points of the semester, if you’re a teacher of introductory macroeconomics, comes when you explain how individual virtue can be public vice, how attempts by consumers to do the right thing by saving more can leave everyone worse off. The point is that if consumers cut their spending, and nothing else takes the place of that spending, the economy will slide into a recession, reducing everyone’s income.

I must agree with Lilburne that such as statement is an example of “childish theory.” As Lilburne quotes Gary North:

peak of saving as if it were a system for hiding paper currency under a mattress. They refuse to answer this crucial question: What does the bank do with the money that a consumer deposits instead of spending? Put another way: What analytical or conceptual difference does it make whether a saver deposits a dollar [in] his bank, which the bank will lend, or whether he spends it, enabling the seller to deposit the dollar in his bank, which his bank will lend?

The Keynesian theory is either ignorantly arrogant (as Keynes himself often was) or completely naive to banking and finance processes.

The best part is this country’s people and leaders’ willingness to accept it without a thought or research.  I guess that’s the definition of progressivism: “Don’t look back, don’t read old thinking, we must move forward with “new” ideas that you don’t call “classic” cuz that’s too old and un-progressive…”

It may be much simpler as to why this thought realm is so popular with politicians and governments, as I’ve previously quoted and discussed here, from Ebeling again:

What Keynes succeeded in doing was to provide a rationale for what governments always like to do: spend money and pander to special interests.

Welcome Back Maynard… I mean Paul… whatever…

Post to Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

Who is “manufacturing” support?!?! ObamaCare really IS opposed by some

I recently read an editorial from Investors Business Daily here.  It starts by stating:

Free Speech: The White House and Congress claim the anti-ObamaCare uprising is artificially organized. But the violent — even racist — union counterattacks, urged on by Democrats, are the real Rent-a-Mobs.

I can’t believe they actually think these uprising are artificial!  It sounds much more like reactions out of fear… especially when they claim “its all just racism because they don’t like their black president…” HA! Yeah, use the bogey counter, that’s it… this is a simple case of fearful reaction to an uncontrollable situation.  Even if they are “manufactured”, whatever that means, people still have to willfully choose to participate. Besides, the level of manufacturing doesn’t come anywhere near that achieved by left-wingers such as Acorn or the Union rallies of the past.  The right is not the rallying type as we’ve seen over history so when they do, it makes you wonder.  As for racism comments, they come with somewhat hypocritical actions:

The White House-ordered push-back has extended even to racist violence. Thugs at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s St. Louis town hall meeting last week beat and knocked down a black man, Kenneth Gladney. One called him the N-word, according to Gladney — all because he was distributing “Don’t Tread On Me” flags.

As for “proof” of manufactured rallies versus the actions of the White House and it’s supporters:

Indeed, it is the opposition to this opposition that is aggressively and meticulously organized.  White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina last week gave the order to “push back twice as hard.”

And the national field director of the union-backed Health Care for America Now (HCAN) on Aug. 4 apparently sent out a four-page, single-spaced, 2,500-word-plus “how to bully” memo.

The document, featured on the Talking Points Memo Web site, says “it’s important that you take away right-wingers’ opportunities to talk with reporters.” It tells operatives to “confiscate signs or leaflets” of those opposing ObamaCare. It adds: “Make sure that you assign marshals to take care of moving the crowd.”

Human Events recently exposed a memo from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating that congressional Democratic leaders and the White House are “working in close coordination with” HCAN and other union-backed groups in organizing a pro-ObamaCare PR blitz this month…

There’s no evidence behind the wild claims of Pelosi and other ObamaCare proponents that the grass-roots protests against them are artificially manufactured.

But there is well-documented proof of the coordinated planning that has led to violent White House/Pelosi-backed thuggery.

Keep up the good work, white house crew.  I wonder if you remember what the office is for?  or what “representative” actually means? Again, check out the article here.

Post to Twitter

Tags: , , ,

Black Markets, Gray Economy, and inevitable free enterprise.

Stewart Brand recently shared some interesting insights about the “poor” and their efforts to escape poverty.  It happens almost entirely outside of the “formal” economy, outside of government regulation, outside of socialistic bureaucracy.  This is the only way it can happen as collective regulation does nothing more than prohibit growth and development.  Although I don’t agree with much that is shared by your typical environmentalist, as they tend to follow Malthusian thought limitations, I found the initial point in this video interesting as well as a point here and there throughout the video.  Take what you will:

Post to Twitter

Tags: , ,

Let the F@T Lady sing? Hello Ms. Debt!

Bravo! Isn’t she grand! Check out more here.

Get a unique perspective on today’s issues with the political cartoons of IBD’s Pulitzer Prize Winner, Michael Ramirez.

Post to Twitter

Tags: , ,

Antiquated Philosophy vs “new” Business & Capitalism (Part 2)

In continuation of yesterday’s post, what is the old-intellectual really fighting?  What cause?  It comes down to two basic possibilities for me.  First, they seek power over others, the want and desire to be served and respected no matter the idea they generate, thus they desire control over the collective, the entire society.  For this reason, they join forces in promoting socialism and its alter-egos.

The second possibility which may not be as intentionally malignant but equally destructive is they honestly think the individual is not capable of managing themselves to the greatest desired possibility and needs help.  If this is true, then the individual would be incapable of helping each other as well since they can’t even manage their own affairs.  Thus, a need for a “higher” being is necessary.  Someone who can not only take care of themselves but is of such capacity that they can care for me, the individual, better than I could possibly care for myself.  In essence, they play a “god” character in their own mind, similar to the pharaohs of ancient Egypt.  How else can they be so sure of their own abilities above those of each individual? And exponentially so as there are a lot of individuals!

In the newer freedom and industrial revolution, the businessman felt his own ability to manage himself was much more adequate and he/she obviously objected.  Hence the banding together in their cause, seeking a new “weapon” through government controls.  As Ayn Rand put it:

They demanded the right to enforce ideas at the point of a gun, that is: through the power of government, and compel the submission of others to the views and wishes of those who would gain control of the government’s machinery.

She continues with the following definition of socialism:

…socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

As social programs are introduced, moving the good ol’ USA further down the road of social reform, just think who you want managing your life and affairs, dictating your need for existence.  It’s kind of scary, at least for those of us who are not in “control of the government’s machinery”…

Post to Twitter

Tags: , , ,

The Keynesian Appeal

In today’s economic landscape, one economist in particular seems to be the most popular, John Maynard Keynes.  Keynes was a British economist who is the father of the Keynesian Theory of economics.  Essentially the concepts are of capitalism with an interventionist appeal.  Wikipedia defines his economics as follows:

Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

If we look at the actions of the US government over the last 80 years, we can see his influence, in some times more strongly than others.  What appeal does he have? in particular, to politicians and political leaders?  I will start by saying I am NOT a support of Keynes.  As a subscriber to free market economics, I don’t feel that any body of people has the ability nor the capacity to effectively “out-guess” the natural market actions in order to create policy and govern money supplies, etc.  A great example of market complexities is leonard Reads book “I, Pencil,” a simple essay on the process of creating a common pencil.  For me, economic interventionism is playing economic “god” and good luck with that. Now, on to the political appeal…

An issue that a full time politician of modern age runs into is a matter of where energy is channelled and what time is dedicated to.  In a efficiently run free-market, there are few full time politicians, many more carry alternative employment and simply govern as a means of maintaining and upholding freedoms and protection with little or no pay.  It is the desire of the statesman to govern himself as to not be governed by one who desires to eliminate freedoms, therefore a natural willingness exists.  However, as a full time politician, for example a legislator, what is the chief function? to legislate… to write law.  As a dedicated full time legislator, you will likely write a considerable amount of law. In a free market, there is no application for the vast majority of such law.  In a Keynesian economy however, you now have a crucial role, a high level of power and importance, you control the fate of society with policy.  A new prestige is created, the aristocrat is born! Richard Ebeling described Keynes work and influence on our current political landscape in an article in the Freeman titled “John Maynard Keynes: The Damage Still Done by a Defunct Economist”:

Seventy years ago, on February 4, 1936, the English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) published what soon became his most famous work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Few books, in so short a time, have gained such wide influence and generated so destructive an impact on public policy. What Keynes succeeded in doing was to provide a rationale for what governments always like to do: spend money and pander to special interests.

In the process Keynes helped undermine what had been three of the essential institutional ingredients of a free-market economy: the gold standard, balanced gov­ernment budgets, and open competitive markets. In their place Keynes’s legacy has given us paper-money inflation, government deficit spending, and more politi­cal intervention throughout the market.

Without getting into the complexities of the various economic theories, simply put, the Keynesian model has an important place for the full time politician while maintaining the air of capitalism.  As a full time politician with little or no economic background (or simply a flawed one), which system would you go for?  The one that gives you a job of course! and an important one at that…

Post to Twitter

Tags: , , ,

Human Progress is the Only Method of Sustainability

I read an article of an interview with the founder of Patagonia (outdoor apparel) stating his case that their is “no such thing as sustainability” and his mission is to work toward it continually.  He is a leader in eco-philanthropy and the environmental “crisis.”  As such, it appears he feels that their is no way the earth’s resources can sustain life at the current rates of consumption.

I have one major issue with people who take this stand (as it is becoming a common and quite-old position to take).  They discount and often disregard altogether the Human Ingenuity factor.  Just as the reports of social scientists in the 1960’s claimed the Earth could not support 5 billion people, there are those who continue with similar rhetoric today.  These claims may even be true at times BUT must be clarified with “at our current technological state” or something to this regard.  What about Oil? When we run out of oil, we are done for… How will we drive?  Utilizing some other fuel source of course.  We are always bound for calamity and shortage if ingenuity and progression are halted.  For this reason, I say these are the only sustainable lifestyles.

I am all for efficiency and conservation of resources.  In fact, many times these are part of our progression.  A more fuel efficient car is good for the environment as well as my pocket book (fuel costs anyway) and that is a step in the right direction, especially if power or drive-ability is not sacrificed.  The environment and economics can work together and should.  In fact, economics may be a powerful gauge to proper enviro-investment and societal eco-development.  That is if the force and coercion through public policy are not tampering with the effectiveness of such natural gauges.

That is my sustainability, my “eco-philanthropy”, human progress, innovation, and ingenuity

Post to Twitter

Tags: , ,

The Entrepreneur’s Answer to Health Care

I recently read an article in the July/August issue of “Fast Company” regarding the new concepts and direction that a division of Walgreen’s is taking in health care.  Hal Rosenbluth and Peter Miller head up a newer division of Walgreen’s called Walgreens Health And Wellness.  They are on a mission to put full scale health clinics in nearly every Walgreen’s around the country.  These clinics will offer health-care at affordable prices (even for cash customers, no insurance!). How can they do this you ask? They have developed a business model that takes care of an obvious marketplace need, as the definition of entrepreneurship tells them to!

With all the hubbub around health care, it appears they have little, if any, competition for the time being. Besides being economical, it is also convenient as Walgreen’s works towards its “corner store” appeal and locale.  Many Americans have a Walgreen’s within a few miles and now a health clinic, pharmacy, and more all in one place.  The clinics goals are not only to be profitable as a stand alone business unit but will also bring in additional revenue on prescriptions as patients will conveniently fill their prescriptions as they are received.  Prescriptions already makeup a huge percentage of Walgreen’s revenue and this appears to only enhance that even further.

And the beauty of all this? I don’t have to pay for it by being robbed through taxes!! No government bureaucracy to waste money and likely run a second-class establishment with ridiculous wait times and mis-diagnosese.

If the government would chill on the health care gig and give it a few years of development, likely we would see competition crop up for Walgreen’s (say Walmart or others?) and begin seeing improved facilities and services with even lower prices as they compete for our business.  Again, Entrepreneurship is the answer!

Post to Twitter

Tags: , ,