Nobody Got Rich on his Own

September 29, 2011

It  kind of amazes me how the Left loves this quote. Follow the below link for a representative example.

The idea, of course, is that a factory owner owes everybody something because everyone paid for the roads,etc. Beyond the collectivist thinking involved that worked so well for the Ukrainians during the 30’s, there’s this.

Warren bases her collectivist thought on the idea that the “rest of us” are paying for stuff. A couple of points:

A little less than 50% of households don’t pay federal income taxes. Does this mean the aforementioned factory owner does not owe them anything?

If the factory owner through taxes subsidizes some of these households’ living expenses, then do they owe him something. What? and how much of it?

Is our debt to one another proportional?  Should the benefit one derives from the government be in direct proportion to the amount one pays? Warren opens up some intriguing possibilities

Or am I correct that a collectivist argument based on “payment” nullifies itself?


It wasn’t as painful as I thought it would be. I liked Gingrich the best by far. I am very out-of-step there. It’s kind of dismaying to me just how far.

I didn’t like Perry all that much. Romney appeared more credible than I expected. I generally like Santorum’s writing, but he comes across as a jerk (like that Lazio guy from NY). Bachman doesn’t have it. Gary Johnson is insufficiently “Presidential;” Whatever that means. This site apparently forgot he was going to be there altogether.

I still don’t understand why Huntsman thought he stood a chance. And then there’s Cain. I was wondering why news stories never mentioned this guy because he was doing pretty well at the grass roots level among Conservatives. You can understand how this might get in the way of the MSM’s depiction of Conservatives in general and the Tea Party in particular.

So, Cain can’t be ignored anymore. He clearly states what he believes, and he comes across well, but I don’t see how the economics of 9 9 9 work out without a drastic cut in spending or a crazy expansion of economic output or both.

This will probably be worth a subpoena or two:

Generally, I try not to attribute malice or evil intent when simple incompetence can serve as an explanation. This may be an exception.

Obama’s Speech; I reject!

September 9, 2011

“I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says, for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from short-changing patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy.”

Thank God for this speech. Republican legislators were just salivating to repeal laws protecting children from mercury. Of course, those CFL’s the Greens like are full of the stuff, unlike incandescent bulbs that don’t have any. . . but I ramble.

Until Obama rejects the notion an agency of the Federal government has the right to interfere in a company’s decision as to where to locate manufacturing plants (among other things), there isn’t going to be a lot hiring any time soon.

So, we got some tax cuts, but all the threats overhanging the economy will, apparently, remain in place.


Killing me Softly

September 1, 2011

My friends and I recently entertained the question as to whether it was reasonable to believe businesses were sitting on their hands because of the President’s actions. I don’t think much more evidence is necessary than to point out the NLRB’s action against Boeing. The Administration is arguing that Boeing must offer its Washington-state based employees redress because Boeing invested $1 billion in a plant in South Carolina. Whatever the facts of the Boeing case, what the NLRB is after is to give unions power over employers who wish to open plants in other states.

Yeah, that might impact a company’s desire to make big investments. Then there’s health care, but we’ve already covered that one numerous times. Another major job-killer is all the money that’s being wasted on “green energy.” Green energy is just another way of saying producing energy inefficiently. Or put more simply to make energy more expensive. But don’t believe me, believe the President.

In a rare moment of candor, candidate Obama tells us “under my plan of a cap-and-trade system electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.” Okay cap-and-trade failed in the legislature, but now he wants to enact it via the EPA.

Let’s be clear, his desire is to make energy more expensive. He may actually believe that will create more jobs. I think he does. I’m not sure under what economic theory subsidized inefficiency is to an economy’s benefit, but that’s his plan. If it raises the price of energy, then well, everyone will have to adjust.

So, businesses are, indeed, adjusting. They’re simply waiting until he’s gone. If he’s not gone in 2012, well, then that will be interesting in that sort of Chinese way no one really likes.

National Review has helpfully catalogued the top ten job killing regulations of the Obama administration:

I’m sure each of these regulations has some virtue in the same sense the Federal government could reduce traffic fatalities by enacting a 100% sales tax on the sale of new cars.

But I don’t find much mystery in why very few businesses are hiring. After all, if the people in charge believe inefficiency breeds economic growth, then who knows what helpful ideas they will come up with next?