Economics for Leaders

The following is from a class by FTE.org (Foundation for Teaching Economics). It is a class mainly for economic teachers how to teach economics to students.
Participants learn that:

• People respond to incentives
• Voluntary exchange provides mutual gains
• Profits attract entrepreneurs
• Competition encourages efficiency
• Private property rights are essential in free societies
• The fact of scarcity necessitates some form of rationing
• Opportunity cost is the real cost of what we choose
• Inflation depends on the money supply
• Choices can cause negative effects
• Economic change is inevitable

Make sense to me. Too bad Congress and the POTUS can't take this class especially those who have no understanding of economics or have wrong ideas about it.

There is no upside to amnesty for illegal aliens

From Washington Times.com (August 17):

The way to increase the percentage of American-Hispanics voting for the Republican Party is (1) To raise their standard of living (and everyone else's) by a return to free-market principles; (2) by an open appeal to their shared American patriotism and (3) by clearly and unapologetically stating the unequivocal rejection of amnesty in any guise, shape or form. U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin don't love the rule of law less than other Americans and understand that the United States already has the most generous legal immigration policy on earth. Given a clear choice and a positive appeal, many will rally. [read more]

Basically this opinion piece (written by a Hispanic running for state office in Florida) is criticizing Bush's and Obama's stand on amnesty for illegals. He said the premise that granting amnesty for illegals would make the Hispanic community vote a certain way is wrong. I agree.

When you ignore individual differences and think or assume everyone in a certain racial block or group would act the same way is a form racism--and is not what Conservatives should be doing. I can understand the Left doing this. But not the Right. The Right should read Mr. Garcia's opinion piece and take it to heart.

Hat tip to NumbersUSA.com for this opinion piece.

A History of Slavery

The first slave owner is America was a black man called Anthony Johnson and the first slave (also a black man) was called John Caster. Does that surprise you? This was first brought to my attention on the Glenn Beck TV show. I checked on this later on and found this historical event on the PBS.org website. A court said that Caster could be a free man but Johnson appealed the order and wanted him to be his slave.

America was not the first country to have slaves. In 18th century BC Babylon had slaves. Greece had slaves in 7th century BC. Then we come to ancient Rome. Remember Spartacus? He was a white slave in Rome who led an uprising. In the Middle Ages (6 - 15th century AD) Germans captured Slavs and made them slaves hence the name. During this same period Arabia had slaves. The prophet Mohamed even had slaves. To be fair he freed them later on. As a side note, Jesus never had slaves. But I digress. I could continue but you get the point.

And the point is slavery was not a white/black issue. It was a human issue. Almost every culture had slaves. When you treat someone as your property it is wrong no matter who does it.

You can read more about the history of slavery on the History World.net website.

Arab TV chief: 9/11 mosque would be 'monument' to terror

From WND.com (Aug. 17):

The director of a Dubai-based, Arab television network writes that most of the world's Muslims couldn't care less about building a mosque near Ground Zero and that plans to do so would only create a "monument" to terrorists.

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, director-general of Al-Arabiya TV, wrote a column in the Aug. 16 London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat arguing that President Obama was wasting his time championing construction of the proposed mosque, which Al-Rashed says the majority of world's Muslims don't want anyway. [read more]

I agree. The mosque does not have to be built near Ground Zero. There are such things as zoning laws. Freedom of religion does not mean you can build a worship building anywhere--just that you can worship your religion as you wish.

Fix the Constitutional Falsehoods Congress Carved Into the Capitol’s Marble

From CNS News.com (Aug. 18):

The Exhibition Hall at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, which opened at the end of 2008, has enshrined in marble a false interpretation of the Constitution that opens the door to an ever-expanding federal government.
The full text of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 says: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
One marble exhibit case, however, is inscribed with these selected words: “The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence.” Another bears these selected words: “The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare.” [read more]

Yea, it's pretty sad when the Capitol's marble does not represent the Constitution very well. Then again Congress hasn't been doing a good of that either.

President Calvin Coolidge: Why his thinking matters today

Calvin Coolidge was one of President Reagan's favorite presidents. An article by Andrew T. Kostanecki talks about his beliefs and the "Roaring Twenties." If you never heard of the "Roaring Twenties" read below:

Under President Coolidge, the economy of the United States enjoyed its greatest period of growth combined with the lowest rate of inflation of the last 100 [my italics] years. The national debt was reduced by 36%. It was the only period in which that has happened since the Civil War. Federal expenditures were reduced by 35%, per capita income rose 37% and tax rates were reduced by 20%. He established charitable deductions, repealed gift taxes, slashed estate taxes and took one third of the population off the tax roles. Yet tax revenues rose and unemployment dropped from 5.5% to 3.2%. It was a time of unparalleled prosperity.

Hence the "Roaring Twenties." And the Left says this period of time just "happened." Like it's a freak occurrence or something. What did Silent Cal as he was called at the time believe? Again from the Mr. Kostanecki article:
• He espoused the dignity and value of hard work, thrift, modesty and self-reliance.
• He had a deep belief in God and in religious freedom.
• He believed that “the chief business of the American people was business” and that the people were basically concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world.
• He argued that material wealth was only a means to an end for achieving, “the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties and the widening of culture.”
• Above all, he supported tax policies that encouraged investment and he blocked government interference in the natural functioning of the marketplace.
• He supported legislation against price-fixing.
• He believed that the world would do better if he “did no harm” and by holding back and providing stability, the citizens would know what to expect and not to expect from the Government.
• He believed that if the private sector was allowed to take the lead, the possibilities for progress would be boundless.
• He argued for the importance of letting Germany pay off its War debts.
• He championed the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. (Kellog-Briand Pact)
• He saw the rights of Colored People as “sacred”, supported civil rights and opposed the then powerful Ku Klux Klan.
• He supported shorter workweeks for women and children, equal pay for equal work, a minimum wage, an increase in the number of children's playgrounds, a reduction in railway fares for workers and their children, improved workplace safety and funding for state hospitals for the mentally ill.
• He passed legislation to limit rent increases and appointed a commission to study the idea of maternity leaves.
• He supported women's suffrage and women's rights.
Can we clone this guy? Just joking. But it would be refreshing if more politicians were like him. I suggest everyone read the rest of the article. Finally, a last thought from President Coolidge:

“I want the people of America to be able to work less for the Government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom.”

Every Bill Should State Its Constitutional Authority, Republican Congressman Says

From CNS News.com (Aug. 11):

(CNSNews.com) - A Republican congressman says all bills introduced in Congress should include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which a law is being enacted.

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) says his Enumerated Powers Act will force Congress to re-examine the role of the national government and curb its "ever-expanding reach."The official summary of H.R. 450, introduced on Jan. 1, 2009, reads as follows:

"Requires each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. Declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a point of order in either chamber of Congress."

The bill has not advanced beyond the Judiciary subcommittee to which it was assigned. [read more]

I like the idea of the bill, but not sure what the "shall give rise to a point of order" statement means. Does not sound like there is much teeth in the bill.

How about if an Act of Congress does not comply with this requirement the act is invalid or unconstitutional. That would be better. Just a thought.

Another Look at The Declaration of Independence

As I was looking at the Declaration I noticed the following grievances about King George:

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

Almost sounds like what's going on now. The second grievances sounds like King George was appointing czars. The colonists were really ticked off at the king. Take notice of this paragraph in the Declaration:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People. [my italics]

Again does that sound familiar? Nah.

Impatient patient stitches own wound

From UPI.com (August 3):

SUNDSVALL, Sweden, Aug. 3 (UPI) -- A Swedish man said hospital workers reported him to police after he got tired of waiting for treatment and stitched his own leg wound. [read more]

The article said the guy waited over an hour. I wouldn't call that being impatient as the headline says. The hospital set out needle and thread (the hospital didn't use cat gut or something other than thread?) so the patient decided to do his own suturing. That must of hurt. Then the hospital reported him to the authorities for "unauthorized suturing."

I wonder if the guy goes back to the hospital if he has another cut or any other medical emergency? I would think twice about it. I mean if you have to sew up your own wound and get in trouble for doing that who needs the hassle. You could stay home and do your own suturing.

Two words: Obamacare anyone?

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

These 14 characteristics are by Dr. Lawrence Britt.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

These fourteen characteristics are pretty good. I notice the doctor has left-leaning bent though. Notice characteristic three where he mentions scapegoating communists and socialists. This might be cause he never looked at countries like Cuba, China and other Marxists regimes. Oh, well. A dictator will always escape goat a group if he perceives a threat to him or his regime.

He also mentions continuing nationalism in characteristic one. China, Cuba, and Venezuela don't have nationalism? Almost every country has nationalism which is basically love of your country. Nothing wrong with that. I don't care if the Iranians love their country. That does not scare me. I crazy leader who wants to start WW III does. Hitler did not start WW II because he loved his country. He started WW II because he was power hungry megalomaniac.

Almost every one these fourteen characteristics can be applied to any communist/Marxist/socialist government. After all fascism, communism and Marxism limits liberty. As the econlib.org website put it for fascism:

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people's allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state's prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

Movement Action Plan

This action plan was created by Bill Moyer in 1987 for leftist radicals. As Glenn Beck has stated on his show the TEA Party may be in stage five of this plan. Click on the chart to see the words easier.

The Planks of the Nationalist Socialist (NAZI) Party of Germany

The following planks below were adopted by the Nazi Party in Munich on February 24, 1920. Ask yourself what ideology does this sound like the most?

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand... the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious (citizen) the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education... We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor - by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

We combat the... materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.

If you said this sounds more like the Left--especially the far Left then you are right. Progressives say that conservatives are Nazi's in their ideology. Really? Name me one conservative that wants profit sharing in business. And after all the word "socialist" is in the word Nazi.

Whether it is fascism, socialism, communism, or statism they all have one thing in common: control and restricting liberty.

The Art of Compromise

In Ayn Rand's book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal she lists three rules about comprising. Any conservative politician running for office (or anyone for that matter who has principles) should read these rules.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

She gives an example of the Republicans compromising with the Democrats about big gov't. I am paraphrasing her point, but if the Dems want big gov't and the GOP wants big gov't lite--it is the Dems that will win because they are more consistent about their big gov't principles.

Be Careful What You Want

In 1917, the Russian peasants were demanding: "Land and Freedom!" But Lenin and Stalin is what they got.
In 1933, the Germans were demanding: "Room to live!" But what they got was Hitler.
In 1793, the French were shouting: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" What they got was Napoleon.
In 1776, the Americans were proclaiming "The Rights of Man" -- and, led by political philosophers, they achieved it.

No revolution, no matter how justified, and no movement, no matter how popular, has ever succeeded without a political philosophy to guide it, to set its direction and goal.

Source: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966) by Ayn Rand.

America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

An interesting article written by Angelo M. Codevilla in The American Spectator. This six page column is about how there are two classes in America (or at least this is how Washington sees the country): The Ruling Class and the Country Class. The Ruling Class thinks of itself as "the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained." The "rest of America" is of course by definition the Country Class. Think elitism.

Some people think term limits for Congress is a good idea. I don't know. But the real problem is the culture in Congress that this article alludes too. No matter who you put in power they will be exposed to that culture. Unless they have very good self-control or just maybe an individualist nature they will be drawn into the Ruling Class' trappings. They will want to be one of the "cool" people--not an outsider. Changing that culture especially the attitude in the culture will be almost impossible.

Hat tip to the Rush Limbaugh show for bringing this article to my attention.

One note. This article parallels my Stereotypes of The Left blog entry on October 2006. Mr. Codevilla article is more flushed out than mine though.

An Illegal Immigration Plan

Below is what I consider a good plan for illegal immigration.

First, put up a wall or a fence or even the National Guard on the border to help out the border control to stop any terrorists or criminals with felonies. We have to screen these risky people out.

Second, fine heavily any business that hires illegal aliens. This will help stop the flood of illegals and it might make the illegals here leave the country. At least will diminish the economic incentive for coming here.

Third, do away with the "anchor baby" law. This law says if an illegal alien gives birth to a baby here then that baby automatically becomes legal. This law was implemented when America had black slaves. Slavery is not illegal, and no other country has this outdated law.

Finally, if you want to become a citizen of this country you have to give at least five different reasons why you like or love America. I think that's fair. When you apply for a job the interviewer asks you why you want to work for the company. Besides we have enough people in this country that don't like this country like the POTUS.

That's the plan. The first two parts should be implemented concurrently if possible.

Salary and Private Property

What's the difference between capping salaries and limiting the number of products a person can own (like Jay Leno's cars)? It's a trick question. There is no difference--both are private property. So, why should the powers-that-be have the right to cap anyone's salary in the private sector? Think about it. Congress does not put any ceiling on their salary. It raises automatically. All they have to do is not to vote for the raise. Also, President Clinton raised the POTUS salary during his term.

Why Dictators Don't Like the Bill of Rights Part 2

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This would prevent any dictator from having an official enter a person's house without a warrant if the dictator thought a person or business was a threat to the regime ie wanted to overthrow it. The official could just barge into the residence and have a look around.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A dictator would laugh at all of this. And if the gov't is totalitarian then the concept of private property does not exist. Your life, liberty, and property is at the whim of the dictator. 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Again a dictator wold laugh at this. A speedy trial? An accused gets a trial as long as the regime wants it to be. You are lucky if the regime gives you a defense attorney. 

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Civil cases are trivial to a dictator.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. No excessive fines? No cruel and unusual punishment? Where's the fun in that! And as for no excessive bail? What does bail mean? Actually, if the crime is a local matter and not related to the state a dictator probably wouldn't care either way.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Rights would be whatever the dictator says they are. 

States and People The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Again any rights are whatever the dictator says they are.

Why Dictators Don't Like the Bill of Rights Part 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Dictators don't like this right because they want to control the dominant religion of the country they rule over or they want to outlaw the religion. Why? Because the religion might not support their plans for the country like the Catholic church in Poland not supporting Communism during the Cold War. China suppresses Christianity and other religions for this reason.  The only religion a dictator would allow is a religion he can control or that supports his regime. Germany does not have freedom of religion as a side note. I am not stating they are a dictatorship--just giving you a comparison.

...or abridging the freedom of speech,  or of the press. Dictators don't want no-one criticizing him or his regime. Dictators don't want outsiders knowing his plans for the country especially when they are not good plans. If people talked about his plans or criticize them or if the press reported what he was up to then the people could rebel. That's why dictators like to control the press and suppress speech. England by the way does not have freedom of speech. I am not saying they are a dictatorship--just stating an interesting side note.

...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. If the people get together and form associations or clubs they can learn what each other thinks about the regime. This could lead to rebellion and a possible overthrow of the current regime. Anyway, this is what a dictator could think. They tend to be paranoid. 

...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Dictators don't care about any grievances from the people. Sort of like America's Congress especially those on the Left.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Dictators don't want rebellion, and they really don't want people rebelling with guns! That could be disastrous to the regime. England does not have the right to bear arms.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. A dictator wouldn't care about this unless he used it as a way to prevent a rebellion. You have soldiers loyal to the regime in a house they can suppress any potential rebellion and also report back to the regime any activities in the house.

There is also a possible downside to this plan. The homeowners could persuade the soldiers to rebel against the regime. President Lincoln suspended this right temporarily during the Civil War.

 

Collectivized "Rights"

The following is an excerpt from Ayn Rand's article by the same name written in June 1963:

A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others---that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please---and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

What she said back then is true today as it was back then. This passage was taken by the way from her book The Virtue of Selfishness.