The Economic Depression of 1920

What? Never heard of that depression? It only lasted one year. Certainly not a great depression. What more info? Read on. From Wikipedia.com:

The recession lasted from January 1920 to July 1921, or 18 months, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Estimates for the decline in Gross National Product also vary. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates GNP declined 6.9%, Nathan Balke and Robert J. Gordon estimate a decline of 3.5%, and Christina Romer estimates a decline of 2.4%

The recession of 1920–21 was characterized by extreme deflation — the largest one-year percentage decline in around 140 years of data. The Department of Commerce estimates 18% deflation, Balke and Gordon estimate 13% deflation, and Romer estimates 14.8% deflation.

Unemployment rose sharply during the recession. Romer estimates a rise to 8.7% from 5.2% and an older estimate from Stanley Lebergott says unemployment rose from 5.2% to 11.7%. [read more]

Why was this depression so short? Because a Republican named Warren G. Harding was elected. As Cato writer Jim Powell says in his article:

Harding had a much better understanding of how an economy works than FDR. As historian Robert K. Murray wrote in The Harding Era, the man who would become our 29th president "always decried high taxes, government waste, and excessive governmental interference in the private sector of the economy. In February 1920, shortly after announcing his candidacy, he advocated a cut in government expenditures and stated that government ought to 'strike the shackles from industry. . . . We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation.'"

One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

Wow! I like this guy. He sounds sort of like Ronald Reagan. But there is more from the same article:

In 1922, the House passed a veterans' bonus bill 333-70, without saying how the bonuses would be funded. The senate passed it 35-17. Despite intense lobbying from the American Legion, Harding vetoed the bill on September 19— just six weeks before congressional elections, when presidents generally throw goodies at voters. Harding said it was unfair to add to the burdens of 110 million taxpayers. [my emphasis]

I definitely like this guy. But Andy, you might say, what about the Teapot Dome scandal? Yea, that wasn't too good. But if the land was privatized this bribery wouldn't have happened. The scandal doesn't change how well President Harding's economic policy worked though.

The Left's Reality Model: Rules & Results

Rules- "if-then" statements that translate your beliefs into actions.

• If the gov't needs another agency, raises taxes on everyone.
• If a new corporation sprouts up, over-regulate it, and try to unionize it.
• If a corporation is going bankrupt then declare it "too big too fail" and nationalize it.
• If you think the working man is not making enough income, create a minimum wage & keep increasing it.
• If a new income comes into being, tax it.
• Make landlords not charge over a certain amount of rent.
• Make bankers lower their loan rates and engage in other practices that they would not ordinary do.
• If a new gov't program like Social Security is created, make it mandatory and infinite.
• If a new business you think is a monopoly, declare it as one forever.
• If a product is perceived as evil or bad, regulate it.
• If a Christian symbol appears on gov't property, remove it.
• If two grade school teams play a game--the loser gets a trophy too.
• Don't teach hard material to grade school students.
• If a part of history makes the Left look bad then remove it from text books and don't teach it.
• If a part of history makes Conservatives look good then remove it from text books and don't teach it.
• Apologize for America.
• Reduce America's nuclear arms.
• Read Miranda rights to any terrorist.
• When arguing with someone freeze him, personalize him, and polarize him.
• If a Mexican comes across America's border illegally, don't stop him and don't send him back.

Results:

• Higher unemployment and more businesses going bankrupt.
• Inflation.
• Nationalization of big business.
• World gov't.
• Bigger government.
• Potential renters paying actual renters for their apartments. 
• More people dependent on the gov't.
• More stupid kids graduating high school.
• Young people out-of-touch with the real world.
• Homeowners defaulting on their loans.
• America's national security in jeopardy.
• Amnesty for illegal aliens.
• Angry, frustrated, confused, resentful, depressed people who are not on the Left.
• Less freedom.

This model I borrowed from Hyrum W. Smith's 1994 book called The 10 Natural Laws of Successful Time and Life Management. Except he had a Behavior Patterns element in the model.

The Left's Reality Model: Belief Window & Needs

Your behavior is a reflection of what you truly believe. Below is a reality model of the Left:

Needs --> Belief Window --> Rules --> Results

The --> means flows or feeds into.

Needs:

• Power.
• Complete unquestioning faith in the Left.
• Blind obedience.
• Complete trust.
• To feel important.

Belief window- what you believe to be true about the world, yourself, and other people.

• Gov't can solve economic problems better than the free market.
• America is the main source of international problems in the world.
• Traditional religions have no place in society.
• Morals are relative.
• Truth is optional.
• Global warming is mainly caused by man.
• Health care is a right.
• Society causes sin.
• The wealthy steal from the poor.
• Corporations always oppress their workers.
• Bankers take advantage of loaners.
• Landlords charge too high a rent.
• Inequality is a sin and not natural.
• Rights of man come from the gov't not God.
• Animals rights are more important than human rights.
• The Constitution is a living document.
• Fetuses are not human.
• Religion increases people's self-esteem.
• School children's self-esteem is more important learning.
• Self-interest and personal responsibility are sins.
• Traditional values are passé.
• Guns are evil.
• The United Nations can solve all the world's problems.
• Any income not taxed is a cost to the gov't.
• Competition is bad.
• Terrorists are just common criminals.
• Water boarding is torture.
• Countries should have open borders.

These beliefs may not be complete but they are the main ones. The next blog entry will cover the Rules and Results of their Reality Model.

Is Obama a Socialist? Part 3: Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration

• Wife Michelle Obama said “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
• Jim Wallis, Obama's spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate
• Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist
• Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market
• John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth
• Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan
• Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao
• Mark Lloyd, FCC 'Diversity Czar'
• Carol Browner, socialist
• Robert Creamer, socialist

Yea, I think the Emperor is a socialist. Even, possibly a Marxist.

Is Obama a Socialist? Part 2: College, Church & Career

College & Church:

• Admittedly sought out 'Marxist' professors
• Admittedly attended 'socialist conferences'
• Began attending a Marxist church - led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years)

Career:

• Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change
• Voted for TARP
• $787 billion stimulus redistribution bill
• Healthcare bill admittedly about 'redistributing the wealth'
• Single Payer Healthcare proponent
• President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler
• President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG
• President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare
• President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man'
• President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs
• Repeatedly vilifies 'the rich'
• Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth... he said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division."
• Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC
• Forces mortgage co's to cover people who aren't paying mortgage
• Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks
• Told Joe the plumber 'it's better when you spread things around'

Is Obama a Socialist? Part 1: His Parents & Mentor

The following facts below are from Glenn Beck's website. He also mentioned these on his TV show.

Barack Obama Sr. (Dad)

• Communist who saw nothing wrong with government 'taxing 100%' so long as the people got benefits...
  • Obama Sr. on socialism
  • Overview of the paper
• Harvard educated economist
• Nairobi bureaucrat who advised government to 'redistribute' income through higher taxes
• Demonized corporations
• Abandoned Barack Obama Jr. when he was 2 years old to continue at Harvard (teaching son that ideology is more important than family)

Stanley Ann Dunham (Mom)

• Communist sympathizer
• Practiced 'critical theory' (aka Marxism)
• Influenced by Nietzsche and Freud
• Left Hawaii for Indonesia, Pakistan
• Attended a leftist church nicknamed the 'little red church' because of its Communist sympathies
• Left Barack Obama Jr.

Mentor

• Barack's grandparents introduced Barack Obama Jr. to poet and communist Frank Marshall Davis
• Davis becomes a mentor as young Barack struggled with abandonment by parents

Part 2 will be about his college, church, career and people in his regime.

Obama Curbs U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development, Usage Policy

From NTI.org (April 6):

The Obama administration today issued its Nuclear Posture Review, swearing off creation of new nuclear weapons and significantly limiting the circumstances under which such armaments could be used, according to news reports (see GSN, March 24).

The document pledges the United States not to conduct nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states, a change in policy from the Bush administration stance that allowed for an atomic response to a biological or chemical strike, Reuters reported (Stewart/Spetalnick, Reuters, April 6).

President Barack Obama told the New York Times that the new policy does not apply to "outliers like Iran and North Korea" that are in noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or have withdrawn from the pact. [read more]

I like Bush's national security better. So, let me understand what Emperor Obama's policy is: If you attack America and don't have nuclear weapons and kill millions of people with another weapon he won't retaliate? Why does the method of attack matter? I mean if someone strangles you to death instead of stabbing you to death--you are still dead. That is like giving a murder a different sentence based on the weapon he used. Makes so sense to me.

Also, why is Obama announcing his national security policy to the world anyway. That's like a football coach telling his opponent his game plan. Jimmy Carter did that and it did not help him at all.

I know Obama wants the world to be nuclear free. It's noble, but naive. I heard on the news that countries are increasing the nuclear arsenal. I rather have countries have peaceful governments. After all it takes is a world leader to give the order to use the nuclear weapons.

The Loving Resistance Fighter

What do you think about these characteristics: Loving resistance fighters are people who

1. pay no attention to a poll unless they know what questions were asked, and why;

2. refuse to accept efficiency as the pre-eminent goal of human relations;

3. have freed themselves from the belief in the magical powers of numbers, do not regard calculation as an adequate substitute for judgment, or precision as a synonym for truth;

4. refuse to allow psychology or any 'social science' to pre-empt the language and thought of common sense;

5. are, at least, suspicious of the idea of progress, and who does not confuse information with understanding;

6. do not regard the aged as irrelevant;

7. take seriously the meaning of family loyalty and honor, and who, when they 'reach out and touch someone,' expect that person to be in the same room;

8. take the great narratives of religion seriously and who do not believe that science is the only system of thought capable of producing truth;

9. know the difference between the sacred and the profane, and who do not wink at tradition for modernity's sake;

10. admire technological ingenuity but do not think it represents the highest possible form of human achievement.

These characteristics come from Neal Postman's 1993 book Technopoly. What's interesting is that characteristics four on up, the Left does not believe in especially the secularists. The old Soviet Union definitely did not believe in these principles. Their whole society was based on science completely--religion was not allowed. If you notice this is not so much an attack on science but a healthy skepticism of it. Science is just a human methodology like any other.

Final thoughts from the author:

A resistance fighter understands that technology must never be accepted as part of the natural order of things, that every technology--from an IQ test to an automobile to a television set to a computer--is a product of a particular economic and political context and carries with it a program, an agenda, and a philosophy that may or may not be life-enhancing and that therefore require scrutiny, criticism, and control.

In short, a technological resistance fighter maintains a epistemological and psychic distance from any technology, so that it always appears somewhat strange, never inevitable, never natural."

Obama Medicare pick urges 'radical transfer of power'

From WND.com (March 29):

President Obama's reported pick to run Medicare and Medicaid, Donald Berwick, has argued for a "radical transfer of power" in the health industry and claimed patients' quality of care in the U.S. medical system is currently measured by the "color of their skin," WND has learned.

The blog [Health Beat] points out Berwick noted, "There's a myth that American healthcare is the best in the world."

"It's not," he continued. "It's not even close."

A 2004 extensive Boston Globe profile of Berwick, meanwhile, labeled the physician and activist a health-care "revolutionary" who wants to "blow up" the system. [read more]

What's this?! Emperor Obama has appointed another radical to a gov't position? Stop the presses! This is news! (Not!) How can this be? Oh, yea, right, now I remember. He's a radical himself.

Alinsky trainer developed 1st Obama volunteers

From Wmd.com (March 25):

The executive director of an activist organization modeled after Marxist community organizer Saul Alinsky and described as teaching tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation was part of the team that developed and delivered a group of volunteers for President Obama's 2008 campaign, WND has learned.

Jackie Kendall, executive director of the Midwest Academy, was on the team that developed and delivered the first Camp Obama training for volunteers aiding Obama's campaign through the 2008 Iowa Caucuses.

Also, in 1998, Obama participated on a panel discussion alongside Midwest Academy founder Heather Booth, an extremist organizer and dedicated disciple of Alinsky. [read more]

Obama not a Marxist huh? He sure hangs around people who are.

How to Recognize a Bad Bill

Here is how to recognize bad legislature:

1. When Congress has to bribe, coerce, and threaten to get a bill passed. If it is good for the country then you can just use good old persuasion and logical arguments to convince someone to vote for it. If you can't use logical arguments then you are ignorant of the bill or you are stupid, or both.

2. When Congress exempts themselves from the bill. If they believe the bill is good for the country then there is no reason for them to do this, right?

3. When Congress makes the bill mandatory. If they believe the bill is good for the country then make it optional. If the constituents believe the bill is good then they will voluntary comply with it. If Congress believes in the bill then they can convince the people why they think it is a good bill if they think no-one will comply with it.

4. When no-one not even Washington knows what is in the bill except the person who wrote it. If that person does not know what is in it then we are all in trouble. If you can't explain to me what the details of the bill or give me a reasonable chance to read it then it is way too complex and too big. Sorry, but saying "just trust me, everything will be okay in the end" will not do.

These clues if you think about it are just common sense. ObamaCare definitely fits all these characteristics. So, does Social Security to a certain extent. For a while Congress exempted themselves from the Social Security tax.

The POTUS and Character

This is what Bertram S. Brown, M.D., a psychiatrist who formerly headed the National Institute of Mental Health and was an aide to President Kennedy said about character and the presidency:

The White House is a character crucible. It either creates or distorts character. Few decent people want to subject themselves to the kind of grueling abuse candidates take when they run in the first place. Many of those who run crave superficial celebrity. They are hollow people who have no principles and simply want to be elected. Even if an individual is balanced, once someone becomes president, how does one solve the conundrum of staying real and somewhat humble when one is surrounded by the most powerful office in the land, and from becoming overwhelmed by an at times pathological environment that treats you every day as an emperor? Here is where the truth strength of the character of the person, not his past accomplishments, will determine whether his presidency ends in accomplishment or failure.

In other words, you want to elect someone that has good character. For that to happen you have to know about his or her character. And that takes research on the voter's part if the press does not do their job.

The JFK, Lincoln and Garfield Assassinations

Here are some interesting facts I learned about both assaassinations from the book In The President's Secret Service (2009) by Ronald Kessler. 

First Abe Lincoln's assassination: Patrolman John F. Parker of the Washington police was on duty guarding President Lincoln while he was watching the play. Instead of remaining on guard outside the president's box, Parker wandered off to watch the play, then went to a nearby saloon for a drink. That was smart. Can you say derelict of duty? 

The assassination of President James A. Garfield: Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, tried to find the bullet in the president's back with an induction-balance electrical device he had invented. While the device worked in tests, it failed to find the bullet. Sounds like Bell could have been the first crime scene investigator of America. 

Finally, JFK's assassination: Kennedy was warned about possible violence in Dallas by then the UN ambassador and a senator. It was the president's choice to ride in an open convertible. JFK told secret service agents he did not want them to ride on the small running boards at the rear of the car. If they had rid on the running boards that day they could have protected him from the fatal shot. 

The Way Science Should Be Done

Or at least to sociologist of science Robert K. Merton and me:

1. Originality. Scientific results should always be original, i.e., novel.

2. Detachment. Scientists undertake their work with no motive other than the advancement of knowledge. They should have no personal axis to grind insofar as the results of their work go, and they should have no psychological commitment to a particular point of view.

3. Universality. Claims and arguments should be given weight according to their intrinsic merits alone, and should not depend upon religion, social, ethnic, or personal factors surrounding the individuals who make them.

4. Skepticism. No scientific statements of fact should be taken on faith. All claims should be carefully scrutinized for invalid arguments and errors of fact, and any such mistakes should be made public immediately.

5. Public accessibility. All scientific knowledge should be freely available to anyone.

Good set of standards. A six standard could be "do not do an experiment that is immoral." I don't think when he mentioned the "religious" aspect of the the Universality norm he meant disregard morals. Just don't let your own biases interfere with the results.

Too bad the global warming scientists don't follow these especially the last four norms which are the most important I think.