About Me

Name:cavalier973
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

an open letter to Rush Limbaugh

my thanks to Yt Knight for this link:
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Some good observations by Rich Lowry at NRO

 
It's reasons why McCain would consider picking Huckabee for his VP.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Old review of LOTR movie

 
Good article; I despise Peter Jackson, by the way, so you can pretty much tell whether the article's author approves of him or not.
 
Here's another one:
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A kick in the teeth for Limbaugh

Gotta love it.  GOT. TO. LOVE. IT.
Remember how everybody and their smelly dog were calling Huckabee a Populist?  That he was a Pro-Life Liberal?
 
It's a website that lists quotes from the candidates to determine their political stance.  Scroll to the bottom...
That's RIGHT!!! Huckabee is a HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE!!
 
Now, check this out: http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
 
Scroll to the bottom, and.... Romney, ol' Mitter the Quitter, is a POPULIST-LEANING CONSERVATIVE!!
 
So, take that, Rush, you ol' Mittwit.
 
By the way, you can determine your political alignment by going here, and answering a 4-question quiz: http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
 
I came out as "Libertarian", by the way.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More articles on Romney

I'm posting these here so that I don't lose track of them; really good arguments against Romney's supposed conservatism, his economic knowledge, his pro-life stance, etc.
 
Romney and economics:
 
 
Romney and his electability:
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Huckabee and the Fair Tax

An older, but good, article:
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Addressing the Protectionist Fever Swamp

In my last post, I mentioned that Rush read from an article that criticized T. Boone Pickens' claim that we were "transferring $700 billion in wealth from the U.S. to foreign nations" through the purchase of oil.  The article is here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/84801-who-ends-up-with-the-oil-we-do#comment_form
 
The first comment on this article was from a raving looney, and I would like to respond to his arguments....
 
Jul 14 05:52 AM
it's unbelievable, frickin' unbelievable how a PhD(!) can come up with such an irgorant, dumb and plain stupid piece. I mean, I have already read a lot of strange stuff from you here at SA, Mr Perry and have more than once critcized your either one-sided or totally absurd views. But this one really blows them all.

Of course, those foreign oil producers just get green paper in exchange. btw, you get the same green paper as your salaries, don't you? So, by your logic, do you make a good deal? But anyway, those green papers are coming home too roost in ever rising quantities. And they start buying up U.S. REAL, HARD ASSETS big time. banks, real estate, companies, large chunks in Anerica's largest and best corporations. They end up being owned by the Scheikhs. They buy raw materials and manufactured goods by the billions to improve THEIR infrastructure, build THEIR economies, develop THEIR future technologies and build THEIR countries for a time when the big oil boom finally comes to an end.
Okay, first let's look at this idea that they start buying up U.S. REAL, HARD ASSETS.  Since Dollars are only good for either 1. Purchasing things within the US or 2. paying taxes and fees to the US government, it's true that these sinister furriners could use their dollars to establish equity positions in U.S. companies; not really surprising, since it's apparently well-known that U.S. companies are some of the best investments in the world.  The looney, however, doesn't consider the fact that these sinister furriners could also, instead of buying up US assets, simply buy US products like cars and fashion accessories and movies and music CDs.  They could also trade their dollars for other currency, if they didn't want anything in the US.
 
But supposing they only use the money to buy US assets.  That would simply drive up the price of said assets, benefitting the current owners.  But let's posit the worst-case scenario: they buy up all our companies and move them overseas.  Well, we simply take the money we got from them buying up our companies, and establish new companies; there really isn't any threat to us "losing our economic sovereignty", or whatever Mr. Fever Swamp is worried about.  Besides, most of our wealth is entailed in things that cannot be bought and transferred out of the country, anyway: our system of government, our entrepreneurial spirit, our education and expertise in business, our strong families, our faith and optimism in the future.
 
Then, there's this idea that they are using the money to improve THEIR infrastructure, blah, blah, blah.  What in the world are we in the US doing with the oil that we obtain with our dollars but improving OUR infrastructure, OUR economy, OUR future technologies?

Then, they will own an ever larger amount of US treasuries. That may seem dumb (and it is, imho) but still that doesn't mean that the u.s. citizens get the better deal! In fact, the US is by now dependent not only on foreign oil supply but also -increasingly so!- on foreign money to finance the u.s. govt's expenditures and bridge the huge deficits. When the foreigners realize that they cannot get any more of value (i.e. when they have bought up a lot more of real estate, corporations and technological know-how) they will simply stop lending at low rates and instead demand much higher ones. it's simple as that. when there are less assets to support yopur liabilities you get diwngraded and pay even more interest - to others.

The government's budget deficit is a different animal than the so-called trade deficit (which is not really a deficit at all), and it can be dealt with through simply lowering government spending.  Also, as a percentage of national GDP, the budget deficit is not yet in critically dangerous territory.  Finally, Mr. Fever Swamp seems to be working under the impression that the US Gov't is buying all this oil, instead of the exchange being made between private interests in the US, and private or public oil suppliers outside the US.  As to the sinister furriners buying up "all our corporations", our laws enable us to create as many corporations as we wish, there's not a limit, so we can continue to found new corporations and sell them in perpetuity.  Really, it's our entrepreneurial spirit and innovative drive that keep us strong economically, not our "real, hard assets" or our corporatins, which are nothing more than the tools we use to bring about our visions.

end of story: foreigners will own most of the assets in the u.s. while the u.s. taxpayer gets beaten every year a birt more for payibng more taxes to finance all the interest expenses, oil imports etc.

Alright, this is getting silly.  If we no longer own any "real hard assets", then there is no longer any reason for us to import oil.

final act: oil exporters and most everybody else will simply stop accepting dollars as payment for oil, gas, raw materials. (btw., Iraq was invaded precisely because Saddam had announced to accept only Euros for his oil!). Now, what will YOU do with your wothless green crap then? Exchange it into euros or yen? at rates double or triple todays? good luck and watch out how much your dollars will buy then.

Okay, we have proof positive that this guy is from the Fever Swamp; I've heard this conspiracy theory before, that the Iraq Invasion was conducted because Saddam wouldn't accept dollars.  The only problem is, we were not trading with Iraq, except to provide food and medecine to the Iraqi people.  Remember the Sanctions?  Anyway, it's silly to think that if Saddam will only accept Euros, then we wouldn't be able to buy his oil.  We trade dollars for Euros and buy Iraqi oil.  Or, we buy the oil from Mexico, Venezuala, and Canada, who do accept dollars.
To think that oil producing nations (of which we are a member, by the way) will no longer accept dollars is to think that the private interests in these nations will at some point no longer desire American produced goods and services, because that's what dollars represent: a claim on American goods and services.  You want the latest Batman Movie DVD?  You gotta have dollars.  You want a Cadillac or a pint of Ben and Jerry's?  Federal Credits will not be fine--we only accept real money (which we define as US Federal Reserve Notes).


Warren Buffet, though focussing not on macroeconomics in his investments, has displayed an much better understanding of the subject than you. (Read his squanderville - thriftville analogy www.freerepublic.com/f... ).
But then again, even Ben bernanke as recently as 3 years ago told the public that a falling us-dollar was not to affect US citizen. yeah right.
 
Alright, we finally come to the end of this delusional rant.  Buffet is a genius at investing, but his mind is hard-wired to investing, and he doesn't really have an expertise outside that field.  Besides, that, he has done so well at investing by taking advantage of US tax policy, funnelling the investments he makes through an insurance company (or something like that).  His pronouncements on such ideas as ending the Estate Tax put his credibility on broader economic thought in question.  Now, I do find something to agree with this guy on--that Bernanke is a stumblebum.  In a time when inflation was knocking at the door, this guy wouldn't quit printing money.  And that brings me to my last point:  the fall in the value of the dollar had little to do with our buying oil.  It was primarily the result of the easy money policy of the Federal Reserve, who kept lowering rates to save one specific segment of the economy--the housing and mortgage industries.  As usually happens when the government steps in to "help" one segment of the US economy, the other industries and interests are made to suffer for it.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rush agreed with me today

I recently posted my thoughts about the T. Boone Pickens ads that are running on the radio.  On his show today, Rush Limbaugh made the point I made in my post "a poor grasp of economic knowledge".
 
One thing I would like to add to Rush's commentary:  one caller asked him whether or not it made sense for us to produce our own oil instead of buying it from overseas. 
 
I would like to say "No, it doesn't make sense, as long as the guy overseas can do it more cheaply than we can."  And even if we can access and produce oil more cheaply than "overseas guy", it still may not mean that we should develop our own oil resources.  It all comes down to a concept economists call "comparative advantage."
 
Imagine a businessman who is at the top of his game.  We'll call him, say, Mitt Romney, for fun.  So Mitt can do multi-million and multi-billion dollar deals every day.  Something you may not know about Mr. Romney, however, is that he is an incredible typist.  He can do 90 words a minute plus on his old beat up Remington, without any mistakes at all. Now, Mr. Romney has a secretary that can only type 70 words a minute, and can only do that using her computer's word processor that automatically checks for spelling.
 
So it make sense for Romney to fire his secretary and do all his typing himself, right?  That, of course, is silly, because each hour Romney spends typing up his own contracts and such is an hour he's not out doing multi-billion dollar deals.  So even though he can outtype his secretary, he still pays her to do it so he can focus on what he does best.
 
The same goes for countries.  The U.S. is a nation of entrepreneurs, and we do every type of production and service business imaginable, and we invent new products to build and new ways to provide services every day.  But we wouldn't be able to do all our innovating if we had to provide every good and service ourselves.  So we outsource things like manufacturing cheap toys and telephone customer service so that we can focus on what we do better, like inventing.
 
So it makes sense for us to spend $700 billion a year to buy oil from overseas and thus be freed up to do whatever it is we have a comparative advantage in.
 
Now, as a caveat, I suspect that we actually have a comparative advantage in producing oil; this is because we have been at it so long, and have advanced technology and experience in the field.  We have institutions that support the type of risk taking that finding new sources of oil requires.  But we have a monkey on our back in the form of extensive government regulation and prohibitions, that keep us from being as efficient in producing oil as "overseas guy".  But people who complain about buying our oil from overseas aren't thinking that way.  They have the idea that if we're having to buy it from overseas, then it means that we are losing out to "overseas guy", with the result that they actually want more government intervention in the economy rather than less (in order to "make the playing field even").  And that, of course, is silly.
 
 
Update:  Here's the link to the transcript of this portion of Rush's show today: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080508/content/01125111.guest.html
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And the Fair Tax WINS!!!

 
 
A link describing a debate between Fair Tax supporters and Flat Tax supporters.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

a poor grasp of economic knowledge

I've been meaning to comment on this for some time now, but Sean Hannity, taking a cue from T. Boone Pickens, has been claiming that our purchase of Saudi oil has been the "largest wealth transfer in history."  Really.
 
Now Hannity may have a point if we were being forced by the Saudis to purchase their oil, then forced to pour the oil down the drain immediately upon receipt.
 
But that's not what is happening. 
 
Imagine a baker who buys all his wheat from one farmer, who does not in return buy anything from the baker.  Hannity could say that this is a "wealth transfer" from the baker to the farmer; but the baker would know better.  He turns all that grain into bread and cakes and doughnuts, for which he gets a handsome profit.  He takes the money from his sales, and buys more grain.  It's called the market.
 
In the same way, when we buy oil from the Saudis, or the Russians, or whoever, we don't meet the tanker at the docks and then pour the oil straight into the ocean; when we get the oil, we immediately turn it into something more valuable, whether it's plastic components or FedEx deliveries.  We make money off all that oil we purchase from the Saudis.  We are engaged in what's known as "adding value" to the oil we purchase.  Even if one would like to term our purchase of Saudi oil as a "wealth transfer" from us to the Saudis, one must realize that we are in a never-ending process of wealth creation.  So we can safely transfer all that wealth to the Saudis, and still be better off, because we can always create more wealth.
 
On a similar note, Glenn Beck is saying on one of his radio commercials that the "housing market stinks."  This may be true from a house seller's standpoint, but there are always two sides of a story, even in economics.  I doubt that if our current price for a gallon of milk dropped from around $4 to under $2, that Mr. Beck would be saying that the "milk market stinks."  It's all a matter of whose perspective you are taking.
 
I think that these talk radio hosts need to at least read Dr. Sowell's Basic Economics before continuing to comment on economic matters.  For the most part, they seem to get it, but then occasionally go off the deep end.  I think this lack of understanding of economics is partly why they keep touting Romney as an economic mavin, when the record shows that Romney, while a good businessman, was not very well acquainted with economic theory.  From what I've seen and heard, John McCain has a clearer understanding of economics than Romney has.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Valuable information about Romney

Even though this stuff is from (apparently) political opponents of Romney, it's important to know what sorts of charges will be made against "Mitter the Quitter" if he is McCain's VP choice.  For my part, I find the arguments quite compelling:
 
 
Update:  There is a link in the above article to a Human Events (Ann Coulter's employer) list of the top RINO's.  This was done back in 2005; take a gander at number 8....
 
 
 
And here is the link to the Wall Street Journal's critique of MittCare: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132884197208937.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
 
 
Update #2:  Here is the American Spectator article that shows just how delusional are those who praise Romney for his "economic expertise":  http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12568
 
Update #3:  When Romney was considering throwing his hat in the ring, he took on two economists as part of his team;  this article explained what's good and bad about these guys:  http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2077.html   It turns out that one of Romney's economic team was a proponent of Pigouvian taxes, which is kind of a "sin tax", to address and correct perceived market failures.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Taking advice from Huckabee

During the primary campaign, it was famously reported that Huckabee said that the Bush Administration was guilty of an "arrogant, bunker mentality."  During that speech (and later column), Huckabee was also reported as saying that if we were going to put boots on the ground in Iran, then we'd better have some wingtips there first.  This was touted far and wide as evidence that Huckabee was a lightweight in foreign policy matters (it wasn't, of course, if you read or listened to the whole speech).
 
Nonetheless, the Bush Administration seems to finally be taking Huckabee's advice:
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Huckabee the "Christian Socialist"

Since they apparently think that calling Huckabee a "Populist" is not gaining any traction, the Huckabee Haters are starting to call him a "Socialist".  The latest charge comes from one of the early foot-soldiers in the modern conservative movement: Richard Viguerie, who claimed that Gov. Huckabee was a "Christian Socialist".  You can read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Viguerie , and his website is here: http://conservativehq.com/home .
This guy was brought to our attention by Mr. Matt Lewis, of Townhall.com, who presented Mr. Viguerie's statement on the blogroll.  Mr. Lewis only stated that Mr. Viguerie was a conservative pioneer; he failed to mention that Viguerie claimed that he couldn't support Ronald Reagan's re-election effort in 1984, because Reagan was too soft on the Soviet Union.
 
But getting back to the charge that Huckabee is a "Christian Socialist";  here is my response on the blog's thread: "This 'Huckabee is a Socialist' diatribe leads me to the conclusion that a lot of Mittwits misunderstand what Socialism is; they seem to think that Socialism is equivalent to government spending. What Socialism actually is is government control of the means of production. I'd like to see Huckabee's policy papers that says he wants the government to take over and run all of America's businesses. Otherwise, saying that Huckabee is a Socialist is nothing more than the delusional rantings of a disordered mind."
 
Enough said, except I would like to add that when one calls Huckabee a "Socialist", when they mean "Populist", or "Big Government Liberal", then what they are doing is stripping the term of its original meaning and replacing it with a definition of their own making.  This is what people on the Left do when they throw around the terms "Fascist" and "Nazi".
Tags: Huckabee  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »