You Say To-MAY-to, I say To-MAH-to

Glenn Garvin, Contributing Editor of Reason magazine, now has a column on the op-ed page of the Miami Herald. And he hit the ground running in his premiere column:

There’s a reason that English is the most widely spoken language on the planet: It’s the most highly adaptable, capable of evolving to meet new needs in the blink of an eye. For example: Just last year, offering mortgages at a cheaper-than-market teaser interest rate with little or no money down was known as ”predatory lending.” But conditions changed — specifically, the party occupying the White House — and now we call that style of lending “national policy.”

The new definition was provided by Predator-in-Chief Barack Obama last week while making his daily announcement of a new bailout plan, this one for homeowners who took on mortgages they can’t afford during banking’s go-go days earlier this decade. Offering them cheaper new terms on their loans — at taxpayer expense, of course — will help us bolster ”those core values of common sense and responsibility, those are the values that have defined this nation,” Obama said.

Only churlish Language Nazis would quibble with those bold new definitions of common sense and responsibility, much less note the extraordinary resemblance between Obama’s mortgage-lending practices and those of the reptilian bankers he denounced so often during his presidential campaign:

Read the entire column here.

Glenn’s column will appear every other Tuesday. For the first time in my life, I’ll be checking out the Herald. Every other Tuesday, anyhow.

-k-

,

Appearing in a Sidebar Near You: No Porkulus

Via Cato@Liberty, this, a mini version of the full page ad taken out by Cato in opposition to the Stimulus Spending Bill1:

I’ll fly this one in the sidebar until this Stimulus Spending Bill hopefully falls under a crush of Nay votes. If we keep some economic freedom, maybe we can restore some of the Bill of Rights damages inflicted over the past 8 years.

-k-


1 Or Porkulus, as I’ve heard it called.

Big Business is not Necessarily the “Free Market”

From my Cato @ Liberty feed, a book that makes my to read list: The Myth of the Robber Barons; an observation from the book:

A key point about the steamship industry is that the government played an active role right from the start in both America and England. Right away this separates two groups of entrepreneurs — those who sought subsidies and those who didn’t. Those who tried to succeed in steamboating primarily through federal aid, pools, vote buying, or stock speculation we will classify as political entrepreneurs. Those who tried to succeed in steamboating primarily by creating and marketing a superior product at a low cost we will classify as market entrepreneurs. No entrepreneur fits perfectly into one category or the other, but most fall generally into one category or the other. The political entrepreneur often fits the classic Robber Baron mold; they stifled productivity (through monopolies and pools), corrupted business and politics, and dulled America’s competitive edge. Market entrepreneurs, by contrast, often made decisive and unpredictable contributions to American economic development.

The linked Cato article applies the book to the current Stimulus Spending Bill, and opines convincingly about why companies such as IBM are on board with the Stimulus Spending Bill, or at least those sections which benefit them.

From my humble perspective, there are companies who make it on their own, and others who make it because they are on a teat of some description. Not through hard work. Not by having better products. Not through markets. But via some type of favorable regulation.

There are those who bemoan Insufficient Regulation, and who are sure that if we just had More Regulation, that things would turn around. To them, I’d say, Give real unfettered competition a chance. I don’t know that unfettered competition has been tried in this country. I think it’s time to try it.

Don’t cost nothin’.

-k-

I, and 200+ Economists, Respectfully Disagree

“There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.”

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

Well, I disagree. But, then, I’m only a lowly computer jock. How about over 200 economists who do disagree?

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

The Cato Institute took out a full-page ad, with the above statement, in several major newspapers today.

Check here to see the full ad and signatories, in PDF.

-k-

Update: The House of Representatives either didn’t read the ad or disagreed with it, as the Spending Bill passed, 244-188. Here’s hoping the Senate has more backbone. I also hope to win the lottery, attend the night race at Bristol, and ride a pony. Maybe the pony will be included in the Senate version.

Damn Straight

Markets are down today on fears of lower corporate earnings. <Sarcasm class=”thick”>Clearly the Fed needs to intervene. The goal should be to inject billions into every public company. We need real capital infusions, even outright ownership and control. Only that will end losses, and leave us with the profit-only system once called socialism. Just look how profitable all socialists countries have been, and without these horrible cyclical changes!</sarcasm>

h/t: Jeffrey Tucker, the Ludwig von Mises Institute

I’m not sure I’m 100% on-board with everything published on that blog, but many of the ideas appeal to me at a very deep level. More on such things later, mixed with the usual geekage and NASCAR wrap-ups.

-k-

Happy Fourth

Here’s a powerful post from downsizedc.org that I’d give my left one to have written.

… On July 4, 1776, 56 men stood up and agreed to pay the price for our liberty.

They had spirit.

The politicians who walk the halls of Capitol Hill are home in their districts now. They’ll ride in parades and give speeches in front of flags. But the symbolism is distracting. These men and women are NOT what America is all about. They are not leaders. They are not special. Frankly, they don’t deserve the attention they’ll get, because unlike the 56 men who birthed our country, they’re not willing to pay a price for liberty.

They lack spirit. They are either fear-peddlers or just plain afraid.

Some have profited, politically, from a campaign of fear. They’ve expanded their power and the powers of their partisan allies through a sustained campaign of intimidation, both of their opponents and their constituents. This deceitful campaign is called, “The War on Terror.”

Others have cowered, politically, appeasing the fear mongers, in order to gain re-election.

Amen. Remember this come November.

-k-

Almost Perfect

I scored a roaring 152 over here.

My test analysis was:

131-159 points: You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots. Think about them, then take the test over again. On the other hand, if you scored this high, you probably have a good libertarian objection to my suggested libertarian answer. :-)

I’ll try to get better, really.

-k-

But You Already Knew This

A timely test:


You are a

Social Liberal
(80% permissive)

and an…

Economic Conservative
(88% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Libertarian



Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

And, from the top chart, one or two “Strongly Agree” or “Strongly Disagree”’s away from Anarchist. I’m still lovable, though.

-k-