Obamacare is a divisive piece of legislation. You all know which side of the issue IVLG lands on, of course.
But it makes me wonder why anyone would want the government to tell them what to do... again. Supporting legislation like this only diminishes your own right to choose.
Reason.com has a very interesting article that discusses and outlines the unenforceable nature of Obamacare. I suggest everyone read it.
-Matthew Nielsen
IVLG
Friday, July 20, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Free? Trade
How "free" is Free Trade?
It's not. The only thing free about free trade is the freedom to push for any special treatment you want. Which quickly and regularly negates the first half of the operation's name... Free.
Individuals with influence do this all the time. Special treatment.
I once was talking with an employee at a zoo. During our conversation, a big-name movie star, celebrity type came into the zoo with her children. Immediately she wanted special treatment: a golf cart to shuttle her and her kids to each exhibit, food and beverages, and a gift bag for the kids when they left. This person paid for nothing. Amazing? Normal. Too normal.
The same goes for any of the world's economic leaders. All of them have gained their economic status as a result of foreign trade. This trade between nations is typically governed by trade agreements. The details of these agreements are not always free of elements of protectionism. Often, and nearly always, trade agreements include "provisions" for tariffs and duties on products which a nation is attempting to discourage other countries from exporting to them. They are "protecting" their economy from the competitive imports they receive from other countries.
Crazy!
If you're not competitive with your trading partners, improve or find something you are competitive at!
What is your government really protecting you from? Lower prices. That doesn't seem like protection, though, does it?
"Well, they're protecting our jobs, though." How so? If everyone could buy everything cheaper than they are now through the removal of tariffs, do you think there's a possibility that some of that money may be invested in technologies and industries in your home country? The quick answer is "Of course it could and most likely would, as a normal part of any healthy economy."
I'm ready for free trade.
Bring it on.
It's not. The only thing free about free trade is the freedom to push for any special treatment you want. Which quickly and regularly negates the first half of the operation's name... Free.
Individuals with influence do this all the time. Special treatment.
I once was talking with an employee at a zoo. During our conversation, a big-name movie star, celebrity type came into the zoo with her children. Immediately she wanted special treatment: a golf cart to shuttle her and her kids to each exhibit, food and beverages, and a gift bag for the kids when they left. This person paid for nothing. Amazing? Normal. Too normal.
The same goes for any of the world's economic leaders. All of them have gained their economic status as a result of foreign trade. This trade between nations is typically governed by trade agreements. The details of these agreements are not always free of elements of protectionism. Often, and nearly always, trade agreements include "provisions" for tariffs and duties on products which a nation is attempting to discourage other countries from exporting to them. They are "protecting" their economy from the competitive imports they receive from other countries.
Crazy!
If you're not competitive with your trading partners, improve or find something you are competitive at!
What is your government really protecting you from? Lower prices. That doesn't seem like protection, though, does it?
"Well, they're protecting our jobs, though." How so? If everyone could buy everything cheaper than they are now through the removal of tariffs, do you think there's a possibility that some of that money may be invested in technologies and industries in your home country? The quick answer is "Of course it could and most likely would, as a normal part of any healthy economy."
I'm ready for free trade.
Bring it on.
Nuclear Iran: US Foreign Policy
In today's "global village" foreign relations is immeasurably important.
First and foremost, a nation has a responsibility to its citizens to
engage in relationships with other countries for economic reasons. When
you're the United States, it's an absolute necessity. How about politics? Today the United States gives away billions of dollars to other countries in the name of... Charity? Good Sportsmanship? Fairness? Economic Interest?
But, how far is too far? Should we be telling other countries what they can and can't do? If you think so, should other countries be telling the USA what to do?
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." -George Washington, 1796
Why do politicians tax our incomes then throw it over an ocean or two? WHY!?
They believe they're better judges of who needs my money than I am. Why else would they do it? WHY!?
WHY!?
But, how far is too far? Should we be telling other countries what they can and can't do? If you think so, should other countries be telling the USA what to do?
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." -George Washington, 1796
Why do politicians tax our incomes then throw it over an ocean or two? WHY!?
They believe they're better judges of who needs my money than I am. Why else would they do it? WHY!?
WHY!?
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Who Can We Trust?
Trust is a complicated thing. It's difficult to gain and easy to lose... or is it? How difficult is trust to gain, really?
Do you trust the media? Probably less now than ever, right?
But, honestly. Do you still believe what the talking heads tell you?
Okay, another question. Do you trust your school teachers, whether yours or your children's or grandchildren's, as the case may be? "Trust them in what arena," you may ask. Do you trust teachers to educate? To tell the whole truth? Yes, Somewhat, No? If you answered anything other than "Yes," then you are more likely involved personally in the education process which will only help. That's my opinion.
Do you think it's possible that teachers' views may possibly purposely or accidentally get spilled into their curriculum, lesson plans and lectures? Do you think it's possible that they feed their views with the nightly news program of their choice? Do you think that the producers and anchors of these channels have their own views that may get mixed into the program?
Hmmm...
Do you think it's possible that a bit of doubt has crept into any trust you may have had in anyone? Well, there is no suggestion here that you should trust no one. That would be absurd at the least and maddening at worst.
However, there is an important idea here related to government and its ideal limitations. If seemingly everyone is susceptible to bias which shapes their worldview, and the spreading of it through their circles of influence, what prevents government from creating their own bubble where everything contrary to their position is ludicrous? Nothing, of course. You've seen it. You're experiencing it and it's been going on since 1789. That's the truth. I happen to believe that the Republic was created in the form that was most likely to succeed. But, we could not "keep it," as Ben Franklin famously quipped as he exited Independence Hall in Pennsylvania.
So, can I trust politicians? Hmmm... That's a tough one. My answer is, rarely. It's rare to find a politician who recognizes the bloated state of government and then votes to reduce its size. Why would an employee vote to reduce the size of his/her company? Fair question.
Who do I trust? Libertarians. People who will keep me safe from physical harm (foreign invasions, etc.), protect my property, preserve my freedom and then leave me alone.
Who can YOU trust?
Do you trust the media? Probably less now than ever, right?
But, honestly. Do you still believe what the talking heads tell you?
Okay, another question. Do you trust your school teachers, whether yours or your children's or grandchildren's, as the case may be? "Trust them in what arena," you may ask. Do you trust teachers to educate? To tell the whole truth? Yes, Somewhat, No? If you answered anything other than "Yes," then you are more likely involved personally in the education process which will only help. That's my opinion.
Do you think it's possible that teachers' views may possibly purposely or accidentally get spilled into their curriculum, lesson plans and lectures? Do you think it's possible that they feed their views with the nightly news program of their choice? Do you think that the producers and anchors of these channels have their own views that may get mixed into the program?
Hmmm...
Do you think it's possible that a bit of doubt has crept into any trust you may have had in anyone? Well, there is no suggestion here that you should trust no one. That would be absurd at the least and maddening at worst.
However, there is an important idea here related to government and its ideal limitations. If seemingly everyone is susceptible to bias which shapes their worldview, and the spreading of it through their circles of influence, what prevents government from creating their own bubble where everything contrary to their position is ludicrous? Nothing, of course. You've seen it. You're experiencing it and it's been going on since 1789. That's the truth. I happen to believe that the Republic was created in the form that was most likely to succeed. But, we could not "keep it," as Ben Franklin famously quipped as he exited Independence Hall in Pennsylvania.
So, can I trust politicians? Hmmm... That's a tough one. My answer is, rarely. It's rare to find a politician who recognizes the bloated state of government and then votes to reduce its size. Why would an employee vote to reduce the size of his/her company? Fair question.
Who do I trust? Libertarians. People who will keep me safe from physical harm (foreign invasions, etc.), protect my property, preserve my freedom and then leave me alone.
Who can YOU trust?
Monday, July 16, 2012
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Taxes and Limited Govt
Taxes are a part of every government. Citizens pay a portion of their incomes in return for administrative services by their elected officials. It sounds pretty simple, while the code that governs taxes is anything but simple.
There are several proposed solutions to this including the flat tax and "fair tax."
These will be the subject of our next post. Stay tuned.
-Matthew Nielsen
IVLG
There are several proposed solutions to this including the flat tax and "fair tax."
These will be the subject of our next post. Stay tuned.
-Matthew Nielsen
IVLG
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Job Creation: Public vs. Private
>>>This just in: More insanity from the IMF on govt spending.
Big government folks on both sides of the political spectrum like to spend your money. It's so common that all of us know that most Democrats and even most Republicans now seem to enjoy spending taxes on their pet projects.
It's an addiction that rears its ugly head time and time again amongst politicians and some of their ravenous constituents and donors. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and when the government is doling out cash as fast as possible, can you blame the folks who want some of their taxes back, in whatever form?
Unfortunately, a very common misconception is regurgitated by politicians, citizens and even educated economists: Government can create jobs. How, you ask? Well, by stimulating the economy, of course. Some of us are aware now that government spending doesn't create jobs. Just because the government creates a program to encourage people to take their vehicles in to a dealership and have its engine seized up so none of the parts can be used (ever again), doesn't mean that a new job was created. All that did was allow a large auto manufacturer to sell a car. They didn't hire anyone new to make that car. Cash for Clunkers was a gross intervention into commerce by the federal government of the United States. It was also one of the worst things you could do in a time when everyone is "going green." Just think of all those auto parts that could have been reused.
The government attempts to stimulate the economy by sending money it got from taxes (or from creditors) into the economy.
Contrast this with the private sector where demand determines supply. One great example: Apple's iPad. It's a huge success and Apple effectively created the market for it. Sure, tablet computers didn't start with the iPad, but Apple made them mainstream and they did it without any help from the government. Apple didn't "prime the pump" first by sending out stimulus checks. They didn't make an announcement that it's your patriotic duty to spend (remember G.W. Bush in 2001). They simply created a product that they were confident in, marketed it, and watched the coffers fill up.
Daniel J. Mitchell of the CATO Institute wrote an article in 2008 that explains how government really can not create jobs. Mitchell argues that government stimulus, intended to "jolt" the economy by spreading money out into the economy, is actually just taking money from your left pocket and putting it into your right. So, how about unemployment benefits? Where does that money come from? Doesn't it come from the folks that just laid you off? If they had hit hard times but never paid unemployment insurance, might they have enough money to keep you on for a bit longer than they otherwise could? Well, maybe so.
This article, written by Barbara Kiviat of TIME magazine in 2009, starts out with all of the facts straight, then quickly turns a corner and suggests that the Cash for Clunkers debacle was a success. Then, another slight turn back when she doesn't quite give three other ideas her full approval, though, according to her, there's no reason not to try them out.
Itkowitz and Kraus of The Morning Call wrote an article just a couple of weeks ago that outlines well the positions of the two opposing approaches to solving the problem of unemployment.
The fact is that most Democrats and Republicans want to spend all the money they get (and then some), just in different ways. The party that you belong to, in large part, depends on your view of where to spend the cash. Some of us are a bit different. We know from personal experience that money doesn't grow on trees, and it can't really be created just because the Federal Reserve types in a couple more zeroes in their transfers to banks around the country. We know from handling our own finances that we've got to learn to live within our means. And, yes, the same principle DOES apply to the government that applies to us personally. How is it all of a sudden okay to go into massive amounts of debt just to pass that debt on to your kids and grandkids... when you're the government?
Do not forget that the people created the government. "... if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master." -E. T. Benson
P.S.
"Students of history know that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. James R. Evans, in his inspiring book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:
Big government folks on both sides of the political spectrum like to spend your money. It's so common that all of us know that most Democrats and even most Republicans now seem to enjoy spending taxes on their pet projects.
It's an addiction that rears its ugly head time and time again amongst politicians and some of their ravenous constituents and donors. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and when the government is doling out cash as fast as possible, can you blame the folks who want some of their taxes back, in whatever form?
Unfortunately, a very common misconception is regurgitated by politicians, citizens and even educated economists: Government can create jobs. How, you ask? Well, by stimulating the economy, of course. Some of us are aware now that government spending doesn't create jobs. Just because the government creates a program to encourage people to take their vehicles in to a dealership and have its engine seized up so none of the parts can be used (ever again), doesn't mean that a new job was created. All that did was allow a large auto manufacturer to sell a car. They didn't hire anyone new to make that car. Cash for Clunkers was a gross intervention into commerce by the federal government of the United States. It was also one of the worst things you could do in a time when everyone is "going green." Just think of all those auto parts that could have been reused.
The government attempts to stimulate the economy by sending money it got from taxes (or from creditors) into the economy.
Contrast this with the private sector where demand determines supply. One great example: Apple's iPad. It's a huge success and Apple effectively created the market for it. Sure, tablet computers didn't start with the iPad, but Apple made them mainstream and they did it without any help from the government. Apple didn't "prime the pump" first by sending out stimulus checks. They didn't make an announcement that it's your patriotic duty to spend (remember G.W. Bush in 2001). They simply created a product that they were confident in, marketed it, and watched the coffers fill up.
Daniel J. Mitchell of the CATO Institute wrote an article in 2008 that explains how government really can not create jobs. Mitchell argues that government stimulus, intended to "jolt" the economy by spreading money out into the economy, is actually just taking money from your left pocket and putting it into your right. So, how about unemployment benefits? Where does that money come from? Doesn't it come from the folks that just laid you off? If they had hit hard times but never paid unemployment insurance, might they have enough money to keep you on for a bit longer than they otherwise could? Well, maybe so.
This article, written by Barbara Kiviat of TIME magazine in 2009, starts out with all of the facts straight, then quickly turns a corner and suggests that the Cash for Clunkers debacle was a success. Then, another slight turn back when she doesn't quite give three other ideas her full approval, though, according to her, there's no reason not to try them out.
Itkowitz and Kraus of The Morning Call wrote an article just a couple of weeks ago that outlines well the positions of the two opposing approaches to solving the problem of unemployment.
The fact is that most Democrats and Republicans want to spend all the money they get (and then some), just in different ways. The party that you belong to, in large part, depends on your view of where to spend the cash. Some of us are a bit different. We know from personal experience that money doesn't grow on trees, and it can't really be created just because the Federal Reserve types in a couple more zeroes in their transfers to banks around the country. We know from handling our own finances that we've got to learn to live within our means. And, yes, the same principle DOES apply to the government that applies to us personally. How is it all of a sudden okay to go into massive amounts of debt just to pass that debt on to your kids and grandkids... when you're the government?
Do not forget that the people created the government. "... if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master." -E. T. Benson
P.S.
"Students of history know that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. James R. Evans, in his inspiring book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:
"Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy. "Neither you nor I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man’s doorbell, hold out a hand and say, ‘Give me what you’ve earned even though I have not.’ We simply wouldn’t do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ In short, we would be held accountable for our actions." -E.T. Benson, The Proper Role of Government
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)