GraniteGrok

Recession - two succeeding quarters of negative growth.

We've been hearing that word, recession, over and over and over again from the media (once again, the mantra of feeling / emotions over facts - hey, it's an election year - should we expect otherwise from the MSM?).

Well, the economy did slow at the end of last year.  However, we have not slid into a recession, no matter the howling from the political classes.  Be that as it may, we've now had quarterly growth of 0.9%, followed by a quarter of 1.9% (a doubling in the percentage rise).  Not negative, positive (albeit small, but still > 0).

From SFgate:

The number of people signing up for jobless benefits declined last week, the third straight drop from a six-year high reached earlier this month, the government said Thursday.

Applications for unemployment benefits dropped to a seasonally adjusted 425,000, down 10,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department reported. That was a slightly better figure than the 427,000 analysts expected.

The four-week moving average also improved to 440,250, down from 446,250 the previous week.

Meanwhile, the Commerce Department said Thursday that the economy grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the second quarter, faster than analysts expected.

Latest number:  3.3% (another doubling almost).  Not bad at all!  Now add the fact the number of people filing for unemployment went down says that we should not only dismissing the idea that we are in a recession, or that a recession is close, but dismissing those that say we are in one.

Unless facts don't matter...

Posted by Skip at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Note to the reader - do you know the difference between profit and profit margin?

Background:  "Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion.”

And Obama wants to institute another windfall profits tax on the oil companies.  Well, just like I said here, things seem to come in waves.  I guess that these nitwits who want this tax have forgotten what happened when they did that the first time - US companies off-shored to get away from the tax burden, domestic oil discovery went down, domestic production went down, and more foreign oil came in.

But, but, but....why, Skip?   Lots of reasons, and I'm not an economist, so I cannot explain it all.  But this I do know - people and companies respond to pricing signals (that's capitalism).  When the government steps into a market, by any means at all, markets respond.  Look what happened when President Bush decided to kill off the executive order on off-shore drilling ban - the price went down. 

Way back when, when government increased the cost of accounting for domestic oil by the windfall tax, US corps brought it in from overseas.  For economists, this is EC 101 (ok, maybe EC 201).  For politicians who are often economically illiterate, this is better known as The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Over at Stop The ACLU, Warner Todd Huston put together a list of profit margins of other industries:

Exxon’s 2007 profit margin = 10%

Here are the profit margins of some of our other industries and companies:

• Areospace Industry’s 2007 profit margin = 8.2%
  

• U.S. Manufacturing Sector’s 2007 profit margin = 8.9%

• GE’s 2007 profit margin = 10.3%

• Berkshire Hathaway Investors = 11.47%

• Chemicals Industry’s 2007 profit margin = 12.7%

• Computers Industry’s 2007 profit margin = 13.7%

• Electronics and appliances Industry’s 2007 profit margin = 14.5%

• Pharmaceuticals Industry’s 2007 profit margin = 18.4%

• Beverages and tobacco Industry’s 2007 profit margin = 19.1%

• Google’s 2007 profit margin = 25.3%

Want “obscene” profits? How about electronics company LG that saw profits increase 505% in 2007? Maybe we should lay low the evil profits from Abbot Laboratories that saw a 110% increase?

Heck, what about the latest Batman movie?  Given the short amount of time that it has been out, that certainly was a windfall for the producers and the main actors, I would think?  Why not them too?

And I loved this last line:

So, why are we attacking just the oil companies again? Could it be that it’s just because the Democrats want a whipping boy? Why, yes. Yes it could be.

Posted by Skip at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Life is JUST SO FREAKIN’ UNFAIR! 

When I was young, I once asked my Uncle why he kept so many old clothes in his closet (they were just SO out of style).  His very wise answer was “if you wait long enough, everything comes back into style, so I save money”.  Well, it took me a long time to learn that answer by experience, and he was right (I think I do have some clothes older than the kind owner of this site - and yes, some have come back into style).

Well, something else has “come back into style” and its time cannot pass fast enough.  I remember the ’70s (no, not the 1870’s, the 1970’s!).  To date myself, I was in high school in the during the first half of that and life was TOUGH!  I had just gotten my driver’s license, had worked hard, saved enough money to buy my first car (with a loan from my brother) and thought I had it made!

And right after I got my license, OPEC decided that because we supported Israel during the 1973 war, we didn’t need their oil (rather, they wouldn’t sell it to us).  And times were TOUGH!  I remember that gas doubled in price ONE WEEK after I got my license (either from 25 to 50 cents, or 35 to 70 cents / gallon).  And then I lived the time that I could only fill my tank (10 gallons max?) on the even days of the week. No huge prices hikes after that either as the government clamped down hard.  And speed limits dropped to 55 MPH.

What a waste!  As with the price controls and the controls on buying, what happened?  Long lines and long waits, that’s what.  Government forgot that there are tradeoffs with rationing.  If it is by price, not everyone can afford it, but it would be available.  If with rationing, it is with time (and I remember watching the news from Communist countries of people queueing up in line to buy really cheap groceries - cheap, but only that which the centralized government had planned on and only in limited amounts of quantities (pssst - just like healthcare will be if Obama and the other socialist Dems put in universal healthcare!).

So, when I heard that Senator John Warner proposed that we go back to a national speed limit of 55MPH again, I was not impressed.  Listening to all the greenies saying that I’m sinning for letting my turbocharged engine turn over a few more times at higher RPMs only puts my into more of a foul mood (and before...

Continue reading "So what’s so bad about me making my own decision about it!" »

Posted by Skip at 9:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

“I’ve been workin’ on the railroad, All the live long day. I've been workin’ on the railroad, Just to pass the time away. Don’t you hear the whistle blowing? Rise up so early in the morn. Don’t you hear the captain shouting ‘Dinah, blow your horn?’”

Quaint words from a bygone era, no doubt. Unfortunately, not everybody leaves the choo-choos back in the memories of childhood long ago. Oh no, there are those, especially politicians, that can’t keep trains a fond remembrance. They feel the need to play with trains, and therefore, they end up with the ultimate set, all funded with OUR money. That’s right- we really ARE workin’ for the railroad, only, you probably didn’t know it, and Dinah isn’t in your kitchen cooking up some grub, and, sadly, there’s no one strummin’ on that ole banjo…

But seriously, there they go again—the railroad promoters, that is. As sure as the seasons change, they’re coming at us for our support—and money—for their long-held dreams of restoring rail service here in New England, looking to return it to its once-mighty seat at the top of our transportation system. To me, this is all well and good, except it doesn’t work out here in the country. I’ve long maintained that public transportation—especially rail-based— works in urban areas, and works well. Here in the sticks, not so. There’s a reason why rail fell out of favor with the advent of the modern automobile and truck, along with America’s awesome Interstate Highway System: FREEDOM.

The ability to go where we want, whenever we want, and with who we want is something that people have long recognized and appreciated. Until now, that is. With gas prices where they are, there are undoubtedly those thinking about trading their individual ride for so-called “public” transportation. Not me. They’ll have to pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers. Count me as one American who is still mired in the midst of a love affair with my automobile. 

The July 14th Laconia Daily Sun carried a story (page 3) that stated,

“Given the high gas prices and the public’s desire for more transportation choices, New Hampshire’s rail enthusiasts are displaying ‘I think I can’ optimism when it comes to expanding passenger train service.”

The piece went on to announce a gathering of “rail advocates” that took place last week

“to discuss how increased passenger rail service could accelerate the state’s economy.”

Ooooh, doesn’t that sound exciting? And you just know it’s a good idea because, guess who’s pushing it? None other than that great and all-knowing leader that makes one immediately think of innovation and success: Michael Dukakis. I know what you’re thinking, “But Doug, Michael DUKAKIS? You mean the same guy that was the Governor of Massachusetts?” Yes, indeed. THAT Michael Dukakis.

Again from the Sun article:

Continue reading "Ridin' the rails. Clickety Clack... " »

Posted by Doug at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Greg Mankiw)

Posted by Skip at 8:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you listen to just the MSM press, you might get the impression that every other house on the street is in foreclosure.  Sad stories, true, of people forced to leave their homes. Every story is painted as the families being victims of an uncaring financial system (or society).

Some, I do believe, are at no fault of their own - solid citizens, buying within their means, and paying monthly on time, sometimes for years.  A job loss, a problem in another area - it happens.  For others though, they gambled / speculated and lost the bet.  Others bought homes well beyond their means and took advantage of easy credit being offered (sometimes, because Congress passed laws stating that they had to - remember redlining with banks got taken out to the woodshed for denying credit?  Many of them may well be those that should not have received that credit after all).

Anyways - we hear of the percentages - but what are the real numbers?  This story from NH Business Report sheds a bit of light:

N.H. foreclosures fall 25% in June

The number of foreclosures in New Hampshire decreased significantly in June, according to a new report.

RealtyTrac, a provider of national real estate marketing data, reported that Granite State foreclosures dropped 25.59 percent from May.

Still, the state’s foreclosure rate remains high – it has increased by 17.25 percent from June 2007.

Percentages are nice, and on large numbers, makes more sense (at times) to use percentages rather than the actuals.  However, when doing so, it is assumed that the readers or listeners know the actual numbers. But I certainly didn't know what they were - did you?

According to RealtyTrac, the number of “Notice of Trustee” sales in June was 307. REO properties, or “Real Estate Owned” by lender — those that have been foreclosed on and repurchased by the bank — stood at 196. That means a total of 503 homes were in some phase of foreclosure last month.

I wish I knew what the total number of houses were in NH - I'm quite sure that it is at least a couple of orders of magnitude larger than 503.  Remember, it is in the large that we should make good policy and not the individual case. At least we can get the sense of the national numbers:

Nationally, New Hampshire ranked in the middle of pack, in 26th place, for number of foreclosures.

Nationally, the foreclosure rate dropped 3.4 percent from May but has jumped 53.28 percent since June 2007, with one in every 501 U.S. households filing for foreclosure -- 252,363 properties in all.

That's out of 126,433,863 total houses, if my math is correcty

Posted by Skip at 8:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Liberals truly believe that we all should be alike - not equal opportunities but equal outcomes.  After all, we are all equals, right?

Wrong.  While we are all equal in the eyes of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we are not all equal when it comes to talent and inherent horsepower.  The Political Correctness troops may rail against this truth, but it is truth none the less.  There are people out there that are stupider than moi; conversely, I know that there are a whole bunch of people that are far smarter than I!

The PC folks also miss on yet another very important factor - one that is often of more importance than inate brainpower - motivation.  I know that there are folks out there that have better educations, are smarter, and have higher IQs than I, yet I have succeeded in life far beyond them.  Why? 

Plain and simple - I've outworked them.  And this seems to be true almost all the time - most often, the most successful people (depending on the parameters of how you define success) are those that work hardest at what they do.  And rightfully, should be considered to be the best at what they do!

Once again, from Greg Mankiw's site shows some research into this idea that the successful among us are different from those that are not:

The Downside of Affluence

According to research by Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning behavioral economist, quoted in an article in the Washington Post, "being wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing pleasurable things and more time doing compulsory things and feeling stressed."

People who make less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those making more than $100,000 a year (I would call them affluent, not wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure.

Moral - if you want to be successful, when you get home from work, go back to work (at something).  While the research is in terms of just financial gain, this is true of almost any activity in life - you gotta work at it. Saddly, this work ethic seems to be a vanishing mantra from society at large (or, at least that portrayed in the media).

There are no entitlements that will make you successful - I wish our government would learn that and translate that into real policies.

Last note: Robert Frank wrote the source column that Manikow quotes.  When I look at that column, it is just dripping with class envy from this Liberal. I have a problem with labeling it the Downside of Affluence - there are many people that say we Americans work too hard - be like the Europeans!  I look at the European lifestyle - frankly, they can keep it.  Hemmed in by far more regulations than we are, taxed at much higher rates, they have been lulled into believing that their governments will take care of them.  What those that believe the "European way" is best is that Europe is in trouble in a number of areas; big trouble.

Posted by Skip at 8:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Stimulating?

Sidenote: this does beg the question - if it was all that important for us to have this money now, why did they have to take it in the first place?  Which then begs the next question: if the Congress rightly judged that it was so important for families to have this money because families were cutting back their spending and slowing the economy due to lack of funds, why are they not following suit in cutting back their own spending?

Who is more important - individual and their families, or government?  Just thought I'd ask.....

Anyways, from a recently discovered blog (by me) by Greg Mankiw, it appears that stimulus checks are being used, er, for stimulating purposes!

Not exactly what they had in mind

A former ec 10 student alerts me to evidence that the stimulus package appears to be working:

An unforeseen and surprising beneficiary of the Economic Stimulus Plan, a plan that George Bush contends will "boost our economy and encourage job creation," has surfaced this week. An independent market-research firm, AIMRCo (Adult Internet Market Research Company), has discovered that many websites focused on adult or erotic material have experienced an upswing in sales in the recent weeks since checks have appeared in millions of Americans' mailboxes across the country.

According to Kirk Mishkin, Head Research Consultant for AIMRCo, "Many of the sites we surveyed have reported 20-30% growth in membership rates since mid-May when the checks were first sent out, and typically the summer is a slow period for this market."

I'm betting that this was not the intent of Congress when this give back was conceived.  TMEW and I have received our tax money back - trust me, there are better places in which it will be spent.

Posted by Skip at 7:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Update and bumped

We talked about the farm bill with Congressman Thaddeus McCotter on Saturday.  More on that bill by Robert Novak (I've edited it - read the original):

Rep. Paul Ryan of (R-WI) ...delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading." 

A majority of both Senate and House Republicans voted for a bill that raises spending 44 percent above last year's, dooming chances to sustain President Bush's promised veto. GOP leaders were divided, with Bush sounding an uncertain trumpet. Today's Republican Party -- divided, drifting, demoralized -- is epitomized by the farm bill.

...Addressing the House Republican caucus behind closed doors at the White House May 7, he disclosed that he would veto the farm bill, then implied it was all right if members "voted their districts" -- that is, if the "aggies" supported the bill. This message was pressed on his colleagues by Rep. Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee.

Yeah, I know, you gotta get reelected.  BUT you don't do that for long by abandoning principles - especially a 44% increase without an emergency reason for it.  Republicans should get slapped around for this - big time.  Once again, they give us at the local level a hard row to hoe (as long as we're talking farms here) when we try to convince people that we believe in less government, less spending, and less taxes.

...Republican Leader Mitch McConnell not only supported the farm bill but earmarked a tax provision benefiting horse farms in his state of Kentucky...

But nobody cracked the party whip. On the contrary, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. So did Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam, who was seen whipping votes for passage. House Republicans voted 100 to 91 to approve the bill (with only 15 Democrats in opposition), assuring an overriden veto. Similarly, in the Senate, Republicans voted 35 to 13 for the bill, and the only Democrats opposing it were Rhode Island's two senators.

Sure, the Republican branding motto is (H/T: Michelle):

The crack research staff at GOP HQ somehow missed that “Change You Deserve” is the marketing slogan for Effexor, an anti-depressant.

Brilliant.

Pass me a Effexor tablet, willya?  I'm depressed.

...Seventeen pork-minded Republican senators gave the Democratic leadership necessary support to waive from the farm bill the brand new ban of earmarks on a bill that had cleared both houses. Thirty-two craven Republican House members voted for upper-bracket tax increases to finance new veterans benefits. They all return to work this week to encounter a new comprehensive reform introduced by Paul Ryan on health care, Social Security and taxes -- titled "A Roadmap for American's Future." If anybody needs a roadmap, it's Ryan's colleagues. 

Ugh, pass the bottle... 

I also went to the NH Republican Party meeting yesterday where I heard two stem winders speeches concerning base, core Republican values - Grant Bosse in NH-2 and John Stephen in NH-1.  I am glad to see that some are actually running as rock-ribbed Republicans instead of running away from values (like I groussed about here).

Note: the 'Grok, nor Doug, nor I have yet endorsed any candidate anywhere - yet. 

======================================================= 

Taxpayer protection?  Nope!

Bigger Government?  Check!

Conservative values supported by conservative legislators?  Nope?

Just a porkarama of a Farm Bill passing through Congress.... 

New sugar program: The bill would make the government buy sugar for 2X the world price, store it, then resell it at about an 80% loss to the taxpayer. Sugar sells for about 11¢/lb on the world market. The US government would have to buy sugar for about 22¢/lb, store it, and then auction off the excess to ethanol plants. We estimate that such an auction would net the government about 4¢/lb. In addition, this new provision would require the government to guarantee that domestic sugar producers get 85 percent of the domestic sugar market. 

Why doesn't the government just tell us to reach into our pockets and throw money at them! 

Sigh....glad to see my Senators (Gregg and Sununu) rejected this atrocity....


(H/T: Greg Mankiw) 

Posted by Skip at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In his radio address this week, President Bush raised several good points about the economy and what we should be doing about rising enegy costs. While I'm not all that "stimulated" by the so-called rebate checks coming our way, I do know many people that DO need that money, and it will help, no doubt. If the government is going to spend money to buy our way out from a recession, at least by giving it directly to the people, it lets US decide how and what to spend it on. (This is how I'm viewing it, anyway, because then it makes me less uptight when I think about the thing...)

The radio spot hit on several items near and dear to where I'm at: Drilling in Alaska, build refineries, and restart the nuclear power industry. Additionally, he rightfully bags on the farm bill, and, yes, he once again calls on Congress to make his tax cuts permanent...

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week, the Commerce Department reported that GDP grew at an annual rate of six-tenths of a percent in the first quarter. This rate of growth is not nearly as high as we would like. And after a record 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, April was the fourth month in a row in which our economy lost jobs, although the unemployment rate dropped to five percent.

My Administration has been clear and candid on the state of the economy. We saw the economic slowdown coming, we were up front about these concerns with the American people, and we've been taking decisive action.

In February, I signed an economic growth package to put more than $150 billion back into the hands of millions of American families, workers, and businesses. This week, the main piece of that package began being implemented, as nearly 7.7 million Americans received their tax rebates electronically. Next week, the Treasury Department will begin mailing checks to millions more across the country. And by this summer, it expects to have sent rebates to more than 130 million American households. These rebates will deliver up to $600 per person, $1,200 per couple, and $300 per child.

 

Continue reading "President Bush makes a few good points..." »

Posted by Doug at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This video really nails it. It's by AngryRenter.com, who ask people to sign their petition here. While it focuses on renters, the point made is applicable to people like me and many others that live in modest little homes within our means. We save so the government can take it? It just doesn't seem right...

Consider this story of poor Jose, the "hapless victim"-- Is it not related? How many less famous "Jose's" are out there with the same basic problem-- or a lesser, yet parallel scale of economy? What's happening is the market has been "correcting" the anomolies. When government interferes, it blocks prospects of any real fix... Again.

[Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin]

Posted by Doug at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've complained about those that use government and the force of government regulation to keep competitors out of their market space. Government should be neutral - favoring no competitor over another (except in matters of national security).

It happens at the international level too!  Problem is, I'm not liking a foreign nation setting up our laws to regulate against their competition, especially as the first is exporting terrorism (and the target is one of our best allies).

Here's a story (via the Arab News) that's worth looking at more closely:

In an interesting tussle, a virtually unnoticed clause was added almost at the least [sic] moment to a US energy bill that bars the government, in particular the Department of Defense, from using Alberta crude because it is deemed unconventional and too dirty. A provision in the US Carbon Neutral Government Act incorporated into the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 act effectively bars the US government from buying fuels that have greater life-cycle emissions than fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources. 

The United States has defined Alberta oil sands as unconventional because the bitumen mined from the ground requires upgrading and refining as opposed to the traditional crude pumped from oil wells.

California Democrat Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Republican Tom Davis added the clause.

I'd expect nothing less from Waxman, but the participation of Tom Davis is worth noting. The Canadians are pushing back, which is no great surprise, but more interesting is what the Saudi dictatorship has been up to:

And why?

Some analysts, however, are claiming that the clause was added after some political maneuvering by Saudi Arabia as it is “increasingly threatened” by Canada’s growing market share of oil production. Strategic resource analyst Paul Michael Wihbey recalling the November OPEC summit, said it was then that for the first time Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi “took a swipe at the oilsands.”

Well, whaddaya know?  Increase production here does increase competition!  So, the fight starts at the political side first - after all, let's keep those margins up there first by competing politically instead of on price.  After all, they've got all those madrassas and anti-West mosques to keep up. 

He claimed the minister then said “Canada is one of the world’s costliest oil producers and requires high prices to remain viable.” Al-Naimi had suggested the Saudi product was a better value for investors, claiming, it costs $40 to $60 a barrel to produce the oilsands crude from the massive reserves.

Big freakin' deal - when oil is $100 plus/barrel, does it make Saudi oil better because it is more profitable?

 

Only to the Saudis... 

Wihbey underlines Saudi Arabia and Canada were direct competitors for the biggest customer: the US. David Kirsch, head of Oil Markets PFC Energy, says that “In the US mid-continent, the penetration of oilsands crude is deep, they are increasingly competing with the long haul crude from the Middle East. Until recently we saw a Saudi domination, but now it is becoming a Canadian affair.” And that’s why the Saudis are starting to play hardball, claimed Wihbey. “They’re playing hardball ... then all of a sudden this legislation pops in, literally a month after these statements were made in November,” noted Wihbey.

If this is accurate, it's yet another reminder that more often than not, when the Saudis clap, Washington jumps.

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at WhizBang is one of the best plain spoken treatises on economics that I have read.  While I have excerpted key parts, go and read the whole thing.

It taught me one thing: I saw exactly why government should be allowed to take our money but ONLY uner our watchful eyes:

First, let's start off with a definition of "worth" or value".  He defines it as: 

For example, "value." "Value" is "what you can get someone else to pay for your item."

Later, he shows us what NOT to do with economics:

The first thing I know about economics is that it does not take well to attempts to control it. Almost every single example I can think of where a government or other body has attempted to command the economy, it has worked out disastrously.

And provides the same example that I have used in the past - yachts are just not about rich people:

It's kind of like the time in the 90's when the government thought it would be a good idea to "soak the rich" by taxing yacht sales. The rich just started buying and registering their yachts overseas, and the end result was the near-destruction of the American yacht industry, putting a lot of boat builders out of work -- very few of whom were millionaires.

In essence, the best thing the government can do to fix most economic problems is GET THE F*** OUT OF THE WAY. The free market is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but it has a hell of a lot better track record than any well-meaning bureaucrat or politician.

And this is why we have to be vigilant on watching government and our money: 

Here's how the government can mess up even the most simple concepts. As I said earlier, the value of an item is whatever you can convince someone to pay for it. This boils down to "I will charge you the most I can get you to pay, because if I make it any higher, you will either get it from someone else, go without, or take it from me and pay nothing." And the buyer says "I will pay you this much and no more, or I will get it somewhere else, go without, or just take it." Negotiations boil down to who can con the other into thinking that those values are not what they are.

Again - the emphasis is on individual responsibility - you have a price and I have 3 options - I get to decide - nothing is forced upon me. 

And now for the government part: 

Government tends to ruin this because it introduces "idealism" into a system designed to work off the fundamental human principle of enlightened self-interest.

I once saw this diagram that illustrated the problem with government spending. It was a simple 2X2 grid, with "YOUR MONEY" and "OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY" on one axis, and "YOUR BENEFIT" and "OTHER PEOPLE'S BENEFIT" on the other.

When you're spending your money for your benefit,...

Continue reading "Economics - explained plainly - and why government doesn't care" »

Posted by Skip at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My, what a difference a few years can make....as well as what capital letter comes after a President's name!

Or does it?  There are always political points to be made by accusing the "other" party of economic malfeasance.  In this case, however, it has been a constant barrage by the Dems (and the MSM) stating that "oh, woe is us!  We're in a Depression!  We're all gonna end up on the streets!"

horse-puckey

Look at the below table - a simple review would tell one that they are both fairly equal (althought I'd rather have the present rather than 1996's.  Plain and simple.

This is one real good reason why I no longer trust the Main Stream Press - they have abrogated their main function of presenting NEWS.  Instead, they present IDEOLOGY as objectivity. And before someone starts to correct that, one only has to listen to the main network news broadcasts and many of the cable news shows. 

Yes, I know - the credit crunch does have the market's knickers all in a knot.  But in the Labor market, the stats still seem to be better now under Bush rather than Clinton. 

From NRO:

Comparing Labor Market Data in 1996 and 2008

Democrats on the Economy in 1996:

“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)

Democrats on the Economy in 2008:

“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

what we're really saying is that there are lifestyle differences that have profound effects on economic outcomes. So, obviously it's not just simply the act of getting married, it's that there are a whole set of commitments and values and whatnot that differentiate those who get married from those who have a more adventurous lifestyle.

Give us an economic fallacy that conservatives tend to believe.

...There are some conservatives, for example, who are arguing that we are losing jobs to our overseas competitors and therefore, the government should step in to stop that.

.

What bothers me when people talk this way, whether they're conservatives or liberals, is that they never compare how many American jobs are going overseas with how many overseas jobs are coming to the United States.

.

I mean Toyota, I don't know how many tens of thousands of people are manufacturing Toyotas right here in the United States. Siemens, Honda, all kinds of other companies, have American employees just as American companies employ people overseas.

.

But again, in order to have some kind of rational discussion about that, you'd have to compare the number of jobs and take other factors into account, too. If the country becomes more prosperous as a result of this, there will be more domestic jobs in the United States. So, even if we lost jobs on net balance in terms of movement in and out, we'd still have more jobs than we would have without all this process. It troubles me that very few people even attempt to weigh how many jobs we wouldn't have except for this outsourcing in both directions.

--the Great Depression got started while we were still on the Gold Standard. That doesn't save you from foolish government policies and I think foolish government policies were the real problem that caused us to get into the Great Depression and to take a whole decade to get out of it.

Posted by Doug at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

"How's your 'stimulus' doin', Frank?" 

"Not bad, Doug. I paid for a tank of heating oil, and the wife bought some new clothes."

Continue reading "Ooh baby... Give me some STIMULUS! Yes... Yes... Huh? That's it?" »

Posted by Doug at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

'Tis the season to be jolly....and the economy in the large has been fairly good.  While different segments have been bumpy from time to time, I think that the reason why most people are in the dumps while the metrics are actually fairly rosy.  Why the dumpster diving?

The Media - it's a pattern!  When the Rs are in the White House, disaster is just around the corner (and if you noticed, they've been saying it since Bush's tax cuts actually rescued the economy).  And I'm not the only one who things so; from Business & Media Institute:

(H/T: NewsBusters)

 10. Airlines are solely to blame for the unfriendly skies.

Media myth: Blame the airlines for all those flight delays; never mind the obsolete government-run agency creating the gridlock.
Truth: The Boyd Group, an aviation consulting company that has been quoted by The Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek and other media, faults the government-run FAA and ATC system for flight delays in particular.

9. Consumer spending is the be-all, end-all of the economy.

Media myth: Without excessive consumer spending – especially at Christmastime – the U.S. economy will collapse.
Truth: Holiday spending wasn’t as ho-hum as journalists had worried. Despite predictions of a “gray Friday,” Black Friday and Saturday sales combined saw a 7.2-percent sales increase, rising to $16.4 billion.  

8. The stock market is trouble, whether it goes up or down.

Media myth: One day the stock market can’t sustain growth; the next, we’re just one drop away from another crash. It doesn’t seem to matter which direction the stock market is moving, because both earn pessimism from the media.
Truth: According to the October 15 Wall Street Journal, a stock market crash is unlikely and investors “see stocks continuing their rebound.”  

Continue reading "End of the Year Lists - the Economic Myths" »

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

...........

[T]here appears to be a gap between economic reality and public perception. Unemployment and inflation remain relatively low, and the economy has experienced 24 consecutive quarters of growth. It’s clearly in better shape than most Americans believe, thanks in some measure to George Bush’s pro-growth policies.

.

But now Americans seem inclined to scrap an economic agenda—tax cuts and trade expansion—that has delivered positive results. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that most Americans have become skeptical of free trade. According to an earlier poll, Democrats hold a double-digit lead as the party that would best handle the economy. Moreover, Gallup polling from September showed that 54 percent of Americans believe that Democrats will do a better job of keeping the country prosperous, compared to just 34 percent who said the same of Republicans.

Posted by Doug at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Dave at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today, we had Liz Mair on the show and we discussed Hillary's free trade leanings (she doesn't, especially when compared to what Bill did when he was Prez) that she wrote about in her article in NRO.  We ended up chatting about China, and the real problems that we have experienced lately with goods from that country.  We basically concluded that while many may be jumping up and down for better government regulation and testing, we agreed that over the long haul, consumers will avoid products from China just because of the problems with pet foods, lead paint (and use of lead in general) and toxic plastics in childrens toys.  This will do more harm to their economy than any regulation we could put into place quickly, and with no retribution (i.e., what's the retribution by a country when people just won't buy your products vs the US establishing trade barriers?)

Well, shortly after the show, I found this article on Treehugger: 

Brand China is so in the toilet over leaded toys made for export that the Chinese Government is starting to take action against pirates in the toy supply chain. The other interesting aspect of his story is that it points to the lack of US coverage, so far, of evidence that voluntary standards don't help when China is the supplier.

[snip]

China has banned more than 750 toy makers from exporting in the last two months as Beijing bends to western pressure to stem a flood of dangerous goods, according to a European Commission report.

A further 690 companies in the southern province of Guangzhou alone were ordered to renovate factories and improve product quality within a fixed period after Beijing investigated more than 3,000 manufacturers in September and October.

00000