Capitalism

Mary O’Grady Says Latin America Needs Economic Liberalization and Property Rights, Not Foreign Aid – WSJ.com

Exactly! I am so tired of these bureaucrats who perpetuate poverty, not cure it, because it gives them a job.

Mary O’Grady Says Latin America Needs Economic Liberalization and Property Rights, Not Foreign Aid – WSJ.com.

Another better than socialism: $1 Million to over 50s

From an email floating around…

Dear Mr. President,

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay each of them $1 million severance, with the following stipulations:

1) They must leave their jobs. Forty million job openings – Unemployment fixed.

2) They must buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered – Auto Industry fixed.

3) They must either buy a house/pay off their mortgage – Housing Crisis fixed.

It seems to me that it can’t get any easier than that!

Do you want me to run it across your teleprompter?

NPR: Stimulus Package Doing More Harm Than Good?

Wow, you know it’s bad when the cheerleaders turn on the home team. In an piece today Neo-Pinko Radio (NPR) suggests yet another wave of elector’s remorse.

News & Notes , March 9, 2009 · The latest economic stimulus package continues to cause disagreement among economists.

Dissenting voices say the stimulus plan is bloated and may present an unconscionable burden on future generations.

For insight, Tony Cox talks with Sherry Jarrell, a professor of finance and economics at Wake Forest University.

Listen to the discussion here. WELL WORTH a 10 minute listen.

Atlas Shrugged: A Must Read for Every American

I’ve been telling Tickler for months now that we are beginning to see Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged come to life. It’s horrifying. Ayn Rand defected from communist Russia in 1926 and wrote Atlas Shrugged in 1957. Needless to say she was not a fan of socialism. Noted economist Stephen Moore wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal in January pointing out this same similarity between the world of Atlas Shrugged and our current political and economic climate. Highlights are below, see the full article here.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises — that in most cases they themselves created — by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as “the looters and their laws.” Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the “Anti-Greed Act” to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel’s promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the “Equalization of Opportunity Act” to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the “Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act,” aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn’t Hank Paulson think of that?

Ultimately, “Atlas Shrugged” is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand’s political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear — leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in “Atlas” occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: “You want me to be Economic Dictator?”

Mr. Thompson: “Yes!”

“And you’ll obey any order I give?”

“Implicitly!”

“Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”

“Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn’t do that . . . How would we pay government employees?”

“Fire your government employees.”

“Oh, no!”

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax “for purposes of fairness” as Barack Obama puts it.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Obama Pays Back the Unions for their Support

On Friday, February 6 at 4:30 pm, just before the end of the day and start of the weekend, Obama quietly signed an executive order which in effect bans all non-union construction shops from being awarded any federally funded construction projects. This effectively discriminates against the 84% of construction workers who are non-union. Didn’t even wait a month to pay back his union cronies, amazing. See discussion on this subject on the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. webpage here. See RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s official statement in response to this shameful example of crooked politics as usual here, also quoted below for easy reference:

WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele today released the following statement concerning the executive order quietly signed by President Barack Obama on Friday ordering the use of union labor for federal construction projects:

“President Obama’s executive order will drive up the cost of government at a time when we should be doing everything possible to save taxpayer dollars. Federal contracts should go to the businesses that can offer taxpayers the best value – not just the unions who supported the Democrats’ campaigns last year. Quietly signing executive orders to payback campaign backers undermines Obama promise to change Washington. It is a disappointment for Americans hoping for more transparency and less politics as usual in Washington.”

Smartest Australians Block Their “Stimulus” Package

Wow. Change the names and numbers and this sounds very familiar. At least Australia has their Democrats pegged and publicly called out. Unlike the embarrassment of liberals cheerleaders that call themselves journalists here.

Turnbull defends decision to block stimulus

Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has defended his decision to vote against the Government’s $42 billion economic stimulus package.

The Government is planning a raft of cash payments, tax breaks and infrastructure spending to boost the economy.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has attacked the Opposition’s decision to vote against the measures.

In an address to the nation, Mr Turnbull says he knows it is not a popular move, but it is the right thing to do.

“The Prime Minister has given the Parliament only 48 hours to consider and approve the expenditure of $42 billion,” he said.

“That isn’t sensible, or prudent. It’s an insult to Australian taxpayers and we in the Opposition will vote against this package.

“We know this won’t be popular with many people but we are determined to do the right thing for Australia and its future.

“Somebody has to stand up for strong financial management. Somebody has to stand up for taxpayers. Somebody has to stand up for future generations.

“We don’t reject the need for a stimulus at this time but our judgment is that $42 billion is too much right now and $200 billion is too much debt. This is not a time for panic. It’s a time for sound, calm judgement.

“There’s no evidence that last year’s $10 billion cash handout was an effective economic stimulus. It did not create the jobs the Government said it would.

“So we oppose rushing to another cash splash. Rather, we propose bring forwarding permanent tax cuts for Australians. This will make many families more than $1,700 better off over the year. It allows them to keep more of their own hard earned cash into the future.

“He’s [Kevin Rudd] asking Parliament to increase our national debt to $200 billion – a level never seen before. That is $9,500 of debt for every Australian, a debt our children will have to pay off years into the future.”

Federal Parliament is sitting late into the night to debate the stimulus package.

The legislation is expected to pass the Lower House overnight, but will face more hurdles in the Senate.

Earlier today Mr Rudd branded Mr Turnbull’s decision to block the package as “rank political expediency”.

“What you have embarked upon today is to vote against the biggest building program in every primary school in the nation,” he said during Question Time.

Democrats are nearly everything that’s wrong with this country, as if I had to say it.