I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

Michael says goodbye to Dean>> See David & Clay & Britt on www.corante.com & www.blaserco.com for technical blog - internet discussions; Dean's not gone, yet.  The model is adapting, quickly; and even w/o Trippi at Dean's campaign, the success of Dean energizing the Dems is undeniable.

 

Bush should be unbeatable, but because of the total, constant, pervasive, (and I think unfair/ untrue) attacks by Bush-haters, he is NOT unbeatable.  Or, he's at least as vulnerable today as Dean was likely to lead the Dems a month ago.

 

Roger writes well about BBC as liars, and French pols being bribed by Saddam’s oil >> Another good job, Roger.  I hope you start thinking more about French envy, and hate against the US because of it; and "rich Jew" envy, and hate against Jews because of it.

 

I have.  I wrote "Money grubbing hate leads to Jew hate" http://tomgrey.motime.com/1069364289#174992  but haven't had time to write about the anti-American = anti-rich = anti-Jew hatreds.

 

Tax the rich becomes punish the rich becomes hate the rich.

 

 

Donald writes of an Army boast to capture Osama this year>>It can only seize him, if he's alive.  Which I still doubt; this statement will make the Army look bad -- more Bush Lies! junk -- if he IS dead and they don't capture him.

 

Or, if he's not dead and they don't capture him.   And the army doesn't look any better if he's alive and he's captured and a) the Army said nothing before, or b) the Army promised they'd get him.  There's no upside to this statement; that seems dumb.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/30/04 17:39 | link | comments

Michael also links to Berman’s fine anti-Left rant, and gets comments, like harry saying Bush is not following Berman’s rhetoric>> Harry, I don't think there's much neo-con obsession with Chalabi over the last 4 months -- have links?  Bush seems determined to do better than Wilson -- even if it means not giving UN veto holding, oil-deciding corrupt France the "permission slip" power its corrupt leaders crave.

 

If you, harry, are unwilling to criticize the Left for opposing Berman's language, it's almost hypocritical to complain about Bush not following through.  Bush stated, like a leader, that the US had been wrong in supporting dictators for 60 years.

 

Now the liberals can try to hold him to account and follow this, or oppose him -- the Left is opposing him, making follow through less likely.  The Angry Left, like in their implicit support of Saddam, is against Bush forcing regime change on other dictators.

 

So complain about the payouts, not the Iraq regime change!

 

Good discussion about corporate DNA and some possible problems. >> Bush as kleptocrat, relative to Clinton, doesn't wash -- the dot.com bubble sizzle and fizzle were Clinton's. Enron & Worldcom abuses occurred under Clinton -- and Bush is putting some of the guilty in jail (yes, it's just to look good. But that's the purpose of democracy, to have a leader do the things that look good.)

I am truly afraid of crony capitalism, and think Bush is fairly bad on this front, but every big corporation's main mission is to make profit for the owners. Regulators always get co-opted.

You totally fail to mention the agency problem: that owners of corporation are splitting a zero-sum pie of profit with the managers, who have been substantially strengthened and emboldened with poison pills, anti-takeover (save bad managers!) laws, etc. Where are corporate raiders now? Almost gone, because it's so difficult -- but raiders were the market's way of stopping super rich managers from getting too much more.

Still, envy of the super rich, combines badly with democratic corruption--voting in favor of using gov't/ other people's/ money for your own projects.

++Plus some details about software & the Dean campaign, and delegates, etc. >> Ideal software at promoting a message, combined with a bad message, will NOT get good results.

 

Booting Saddam was good.

 

Maybe Bush lied on WMDs, maybe the reconstruction could be, should be, better.

 

I, personally, dream ... of a World Without Dictators.  (see my blog tomgrey.motime.com)  Really.  This dream I have, I believe is good.  Dean, and the Dems, and the Angry Left -- you, not me -- need to understand that, best or worst social software notwithstanding,  the Nov 2004 election winner will believe that...

booting Saddam was good.

 

Clay Shirky suggests that Dean’s effective use of social software resulted in an echo chamber negative effect, as well.  Britt disagrees. >> What's needed is middle class Americans to take care of their own problems instead of wanting gov't handouts.  Maybe blogging will help--but the coopting happens in return for gov't cash/ programs.

 

Britt's point about social software getting Dean frontrunner status is important, as is Jon L's note about "Front-runner" syndrome.

 

But what issues?  Bush hate ABB is not an issue.  Cut & run in Iraq; or is it stick it out and reconstruct?  Was it good or bad to boot Saddam, or whatever?

 

It's interesting that you don't "give a fuck about the Democratic Party" -- so why should most voters?  (And doesn't casual use of deliberately offensive words, proving your hipness, increase the need for HATE to demonstrate vehemence? perhaps not an issue; though perhaps yes?)

 

Oh I know the issue, punish, er, tax the rich! They're all money grubbing JJJJJJ, er, grubbers, anyway.

 

Roger posts a great Paul Berman article on the Left>>Where is it(?): When Palestinians love their children, more than they hate Israel, there will be peace.

 

When the Left loves the (real) poor, more than they hate the rich -- they will let the poor get richer.  Paul Berman's article's great.  Not too personal for me, but great.  The Angry Left is making Bush's job harder, so his failures ARE the Left's responsibility, some -- but they'll avoid it like the lack of guilt for Cambodia's Killing Fields. 

 

Bush ain't great ... or is he?  Saddam was terrible, it IS GREAT he's gone.

++Let's also remember why France would always veto UN SC action.

French corruption --  Oil!  or is that OOOOIIIIILLLL!!!

 

 

Great note by Brad, " But there is still the awkward fact that America's financial markets do a better job of channeling capital and controlling corporate managers than any other system yet devised (whether the investment directorate of GOSPLAN, the bottom-up investment "program" of the Great Leap Forward, or the big bank-crony capitalism Germano-Japanese model). " >>  Great quote, Brad.  You might have noted that the manager performance creed ROI is also the single most objective measure of material wealth creation.

 

The super rich are pulling ever ahead of the mere "rich" (US middle class, house-car owning, vacationing normal folk; top 20% in the world).  China lost manufacturing jobs, too -- robots are making more; to the profit of the owners of capital. 

 

Too bad Dems have been lying about Soc. Security so retiring boomers don't really own their own pension funds.

 

Gabriel Syme of White Rose, via Samizdata, discusses ID cards; and 3-d, vs 2d, etc.  And Identity theft, with a claim of $24 bill in loss >>Sorry, Gabriel, I flatly do not believe $24 billion in identity theft for either 2003 or 2004.  It seems high by at least 1, prolly 2 orders of magnitude.  (spam scams are not identity theft.)  

 

But the War on Drugs, too, justifies huge snooping, since nothing else stops rich folk from taking drugs (and ID cards won't, either).  There is, in some sense, a race to rid the world of dictators, and stupid drug laws, while the security fears of the people (sheeple?) accept ever greater privacy intrusions.

 

Brazil (in Czech, not Slovak) was on over the Christmas breaks -- the security apparatus & bureau fumbling are more frightening, because of more likely realization, than Orwell.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/29/04 21:11 | link | comments

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110004614

Claudia Rosset is so very right, that TYRANNY, not WMDs, is the problem, the main threat.

 

http://www.freespeech.com/archives/001876.html

Del at FreeSpeech writes about Carnegie’s selective amnesia on WMDs.  Worse than Human Rights Watch, in many ways, but related.

 

Grim at FreeSpeech notes a ceremony to denounce Baath party membership and pledge help to Iraq, some 2 000 >>Great start!

We need more events like this, AND JOBS, like from local mayors/ security chiefs, to make more of these guys deputies.  And put them as the third or fourth in group patrols, trying to do good and stop bad.

 

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_01.html#006026

More comments on Jeff & the UN>>HRW wants a very specific set of reasons before endorsing "humanitarian considerations" as a justification for "war".  Of course, I don't think Congress has yet "declared War" on Iraq, so there's a sense that the US is not, and was not, "at war" -- but we all accept that sending in the Marines means we're at war, with or with a UN or a US Congress "permission slip".  (Am I offending everybody?)

 

HRW also wants inhumane regimes to change without war, so do I.  But I'm willing to support war, against inhumane regimes, even if they are not actively perpetrating mass murder in the last 24 hours, or 24 days, or 24 months.  Jeff is right to ask HRW for their standard -- how many have to be killed in how many time units for HRW to accept it?

 

[BTW, Stubby, I put 1% of the 18-45 year olds killed as being "too expensive" for any good other than defense.  The Confederates were justified in defending themselves at their level of casualties; ending slavery was VERY GOOD, but TOO EXPENSIVE by the North.  Once started, though, Lincoln could not stop without it being a severe loss.  Note that Brazil ended slavery in 1886 or so, without a civil war.  Containing the South was a reasonable alternative to consider, but almost certain to lead to electoral defeat.]

 

HRW also wants the UN SC to be a world gov't, world policeman.  But it's not, either.  And, with dictators, doesn't deserve to be.  Jeff seems mostly right that HRW is trying to take away "humanitarian" reasons for Bush's war.  This is anti-Bush bullpucky, unless and until they quantify QUITE a bit more than they're willing to do, so far.  Honesty.  Transparency.  Accountability -- applies to anti-war folk, too.

 

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/000472.html

Centerfield notes that we’re in unusual times>>We are, indeed, in unusual times -- when reasonable people differ on whether we are AT WAR, or should be.

 

There is also the matter of what our goals are, if we are at war, but these are difficult to reasonably discuss when there is basic disagreement on whether or not we are at war, a) due to 9/11 attacks against us, or b) wrongly, due to our war response to 9/11 instead of police response.

 

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/000468.html

Centerfield also notes some Left snarks about Tom F >>As long as the ME is full of countries that severely restrict free speech, leaders who are afraid of words, they are going to remain backward.

 

Yep, National Geographic candidates -- except for oil.  Which the Allies of WW I and WW II allowed the Arab leaders to benefit from when deposing the Turk Muslims empire.  They have not gone through the required cultural changes that lead to modern, property market oriented wealth creating societies -- yet their leaders are rich.

 

The Arab street is right to be angry, but the US (& corps, etc., puh leeese) is the wrong target--it is their own leaders who are oppressing them.

 

Arafat of the PA is a fine example; elected, once, for life (?), with thugs to beat up any Pali who questions any of his mistakes or corruptions.  No free speech, little development; lots of resentment, but why isn't there "enough to change leaders"?

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/28/04 23:30 | link | comments

Unofficial, test version of:

AEI Today –  Events, news, and commentary from the American Enterprise Institute

New Publications, with comments by Tom Grey, for Monday, January 26, 2004

"Democracy Anxiety," by Reuel Marc Gerecht
Article in the Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19771/

“The Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad is now at odds with Iraqi Shiite history and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most influential cleric in Iraq, and probably the most renowned divine in Shiite Islam.”  Iraq's Shiites are nervous they won't get to vote; Americans are nervous about letting them.  Reuel Marc Gerecht discusses some of the historical background, and recent mistakes, in current Iraq.  Unfortunately he doesn’t mention local elections, for local mayors, with limited but real, democratically derived, power.  He does discuss the church-state separation issue, with the important note that Sistani is more on the side of separation than the Iranian Shiite theocratic mullahs, or the more militant Sadr – who has already perhaps made Bremer blink once.

"Simple Justice," by Charles Murray
Article in the Sunday Times (London), January 25, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19766/

Charles Murray looks at the current ideal of alternative, non-prison punishment, attempting to make criminals “aware of the impact they've actually had on [the victims] and, ideally, apologise”.  He contrasts this new view with the more historic one, both morally and practically. “By any realistic measure, British criminal justice historically was superb. Its philosophical core was retributive justice, applied consistently and without apology. Isn't it time for its return?”

"Leadership and the Fear Factor: Fear Is More Reliable," by Michael A. Ledeen
Article in MIT Sloan Management Review, January 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19769/

Michael A. Ledeen  writes that “Fear is a four-letter word in companies today, but CEO's rhetoric of "love" often inspires more cynicism than genuine affection. Leaders would do well to develop a more sophisticated understanding of each term.”  He notes interesting issues of the higher reliability of fear, the greater blame against the leader if love was the emotional glue.  Not at all surprisingly, “People want clear rules, honesty and mutual trust.”  Without quite saying so, he is calling for more honest performance reviews, according to clear standards.  This almost certainly would improve teaching, too.

 

 
"U.S. Enters New Expansive 'Proof of Primacy,'" by Thomas Donnelly
Article in Navy News Week, January 26, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19773/
Thomas Donnelly notes that the invasion of Iraq marked the energetic exercise of U.S. power not simply to protect the status quo of American global preeminence but to extend the current liberal international order.  He argues that this seems unchallenged, despite the “long-held American belief that the exercise of power, even by the United States itself, is inherently corrupting and an invitation to tyranny.”  (Why can’t I avoid hearing 3 little pigs singing: Who’s afraid of the Big U.S, the Big U.S., the Big U.S.?)  Drawing upon William Wohlforth’s work on the stability of a unipolar world,  there’s a reasonable explanation of how no other power center has grown to challenge the US.  What Donnelly doesn’t say, though I dream of, is a World Without Dictators – in my lifetime.  Through evolutionary regime change in China; more energetic regime change throughout the ME.

 

"It's a Family Affair," by Roger Bate
Article on Tech Central Station, January 26, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19770/
Roger Bate considers the new push to blame fast food merchants for obesity, especially in children. The pressure on firms has been increasing, while ignoring the problem that parents (and schools) are to blame for not enabling their children to burn enough calories.  Roger is too easy on the schools, who claim that reading, for instance, is more important than outside play.  While true, there is some balance.  The schools never compare the difference between 4 hours reading, no exercise, versus 3.5 hours reading, 30 minutes exercise, versus 3 hours reading, 60 minutes exercise.  If there were only these three choices, I would want MY kids getting 60 minutes of exercise.  I also want more explanations of the responsibilities of parents to read with their children – and third graders who can’t read at even a second grade level, THEIR parents should be in trouble.  Maybe the principal should send a note to the parent’s boss?

 

"Mishandling Terrorism," by Laurie Mylroie
Article on National Review Online, January 23, 2004
Full text: http://www.aei.org/news19767/

The US has mishandled terrorism since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Bush has explained what went wrong: That attack was treated entirely as a law-enforcement issue; "some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison."

Laurie Mylroie further explains that “Trials are narrowly focused. A prosecutor aims to secure convictions and maximal sentences for the defendants in the courtroom; pursuing the question of possible state sponsorship is rarely relevant to that task.”  Terrorists supported by state and quasi-state organizations are not going to be deterred by mere law enforcement.  As the Dem anti-Bush, anti-war candidates posture, the law enforcement paradigm is somewhat seductive.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/27/04 19:47 | link | comments

(via Glenn at Instapundit) Detroit News is looking for (volunteer) bloggers! Time to ask AEI!

 

Daniel Drezner on traditional marriage, noting that it’s better in almost every way. And staying married through the bad times is usually better than getting divorced.

 

The BBC and the Brit gov’t doesn’t like the fact that the people want to protect their homes, including with the use of guns. So the people are ignored.

 

David at Front Page reprints a long article about Grover Norquist being an ally of Islamofascists. He may have to go, this will be interesting to watch.

 

David offers help in documenting and reporting bias in education, usually liberal bias. Pretty good, but inactive since Nov 2004 – they need a group blog!

 

Baghdadee on CPA >> Insofar as elections need voting rolls, a voting place, voting ballots, and candidates, I don't see any reason why more Iraqi cities don't already have votes on "temporary" mayors. I understand that steps towards such earlier were rebuffed by the US led forces.

It is important to get the gov't/ reconstruction budget on the table soon -- how much money, which has to be split on the top priorities. Local Iraqi mayors should be making more decisions; the transition should be that US led forces control some money, and Iraqi elected officials control some money.

Over time, the money/ power of the Iraqis will be greater than the CPA; and the locals will have more experience.

 

Kurdo wants immediate independence of Kurds in Kurdistan>>Slovakia and the Czech Rep. split, too, after post WW I treaties. There should, eventually, be an independent Kurdistan. But that should be based on referendum, and records of ownership pre-91, pre-68 ...

It will probably need a referendum -- and Bush will be against it because a) it means Iraq will devolve into 3 states, instead of 1; b) Turkey's Kurds will want to join, and the 15-20 million Kurds outside of Iraq should prolly be part of a greater Kurdistan, too.

Please push for mayor elections, in Kirkuk, etc -- and fight over the voting rolls! Get Kurds who were refugees to be Kirkuk voting rolls!

But please, PLEASE, stop calling it genocide. Ethnic cleansing, yes -- the US-USSR allies allowed it after WW II (Sudetenland Germans, millions). Palis leaving/ fleeing Israel. Cleansing is bad, but not genocide.

 

Jeff notes the zeal of the bloggers wanting to spread the blog-gospel.

 

NRO's Rosenberg notes Abortion Vulnerabilities, “A whopping 77 percent of Americans age 18 to 29 favor the ban on partial-birth abortion signed by President Bush last year. Perhaps even more interesting, 57 percent of obstetricians and gynecologists favor the ban.”

“As a moderate Senate candidate from North Carolina, Edwards opposed partial-birth abortion. "I think partial-birth abortions should be banned," Edwards told the Associated Press on September 19, 1998. "These are terribly gruesome procedures."

But the very next year, Edwards flip-flopped, voting against the partial-birth abortion ban in 1999. Now Edwards the presidential candidate strongly supports abortion on demand.”  The pro-life is gaining, and will continue to gain among the responsible young.

 

Sean wants to thank God for allowing tarrifs to support protectionism>>Sean, the same can be said of "white" jobs going to "blacks"; the blacks are taking ever more of the good jobs. More realistically, Asian children.

An Indian in India making $15/hr doing YOUR job, or MINE, deserves it more. The US needs to make it easier, and cheaper, to start your OWN business, and not rely on some big profit-making corp giving overpaid cushy jobs.

And maybe get tougher, including taxes, on overpaid top execs.

 

Sean also thinks setting a date to leave Iraq is bad news>>you're right -- setting the deadline in time, rather than in status, is terrible.

 

Donald on abortion, asking if killing the old is basically the same. >>Killing dependents because they are inconvenient is similar in both cases.

The inconvenience of unwanted pregnancy is less and more than the inconvenience of elderly care. Less in that there can be more help by others for the elderly, like a (mostly uncaring, professional, bureaucratic) gov't institution. More because only the bio-mother can realistically carry the baby to term.

Less, again, because pregnancy is time limited, some 9 months max. Poor Nancy Reagan has been, and will be, taking care of the Pres. for years.

Adoption, giving the baby up, must become the SOCIALLY approved method of avoiding the burdensome responsibility of raising a child.

There was a list, around Roe v. Wade time, of famous women like Billie Jean King, who had had abortions.

No such list of women able to acknowledge giving babies up for adoption has been produced. Pro-life supporters must be more accepting of poor women giving babies up -- and accuse the rich women of being selfish, killing for convenience.

No elderly should be killed as long as there are any, like Church hospitals, willing to take care of them -- within their voluntarily collected budget resources. Pain reducing palliative (?) care must be a priority--yes, morphine for the terminally ill.

Gov't institutions for caring of unwanted dependents is more important than farm, airline, or any business subsidy; and even more important than most college gov't grants.

Every human life should be highly respected.

 

Ornery on Dems seeing the light, with Mech_Engr explaining how cutting a poor guy’s [income] tax in half is a bigger percentage cut than cutting a rich guys tax by a third >> Good example ME, but you missed an "income" when you mentioned the rich paying so much. In fact, all workers pay So. Sec. & other payroll taxes, etc., in the case of So. Sec. the middle classes usually pay a higher proportion of their income.

As I'm sure you know, and possibly even support -- I do. I'd favor a 10 or even 15% required retirement savings account, so people retire on THEIR money, instead of on somebody else's money (as we have now).

All over the world, destructive envy tries to stop anybody from doing "too well". Those who care about Bill Gates' multi-million $ home, and consider it unfair, and thus unjust, are really too filled with envy.

The biggest help to any deserving poor person is to offer them a job, or a better job. When Dems understand this, they'll be more helpful; lower taxes on business are the best way to get more offers of better jobs to more folks.

++ By the way, Jed's silly "Wealth's not created, it's just transferred" is a huge distraction; since subjective value is so key to wealth. Somebody with a 3 bedroom house and no fear of children being kidnapped might well feel wealthier, and choose the 3 bedroom life over a huge mansion behind security walls, lots more money, and a fear of having his kids held for ransom (in South America, for instance).

But accountants, and making investment decisions to minimize taxes, actually reduce the amount of wealth created by greatly reducing taxes paid by a person/ organization. It makes economic sense for an org to spend $3 mil on risky/ silly investment that returns only $2 mil, in order to save $1.5 mil in taxes, even if it costs an extra $100k to the accountant.

The current tax mess is full of this nonsense -- a flat rate tax (like Russia! Like Slovakia!) would reduce this. In Russia's case, it substantially increased the tax revenue. It was just passed in Slovakia, will be closer to neutral (deliberately), but in both cases it increases the ...

Return on Investment.

Big RoI in the past is why the US is so wealthy today, and why Japan has been stagnating for over a decade, despite the Japanese having much higher savings rates. Just putting huge amounts of Talants in the ground is not a good investment (see the Bible!). RoI is the nearest measure to wealth creation we have (all reduced to $ though, more or less security not well included)

The rich are usually rich because they have the talent/ skill of squeezing higher RoI out of investment dollars, and thus creating bigger future pies; so, in theory, everybody can have a bigger piece.

++ Final point, tax cuts to avoid Clinton's HUGE dot.com bubble popped recession was a good idea; it worked so well many folk forget that a 1929 sized wealth evaporation occurred under Clinton, but Bush's tax cuts (and Greenspan's fed rate reductions) really let the USA have a soft, soft landing. Few Euro countries have less than 7% unemployment ...

The tax cut went some to consumers, who kept demand up, buying stuff (on credit, etc); and it went to the rich, who can invest it, and create/ save jobs.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what the optimal macro balance is -- and few even agree on what could measure that balance (I suggest unemployment). I suspect Bush's cuts were pretty close to optimal, given the HUGE bubble pop. Nobody will ever be able to prove it, though, even if it's true -- or not. Such is the state of the art of economics.

 

An interesting paper about the weak response to bankruptcy in CEE, including criticizing the reluctance to go after individual debtors who have helped cause the bankruptcy.

 

Roger discusses another debate, sad that Edwards fumbled on a question about Islam. Comments drifted on about Bush and the deficit>>Lower taxes means better investment, by owners who want to profit. Lower tax rates on businesses means smarter investments, since tax dodges are relatively less beneficial.

Most gov't spending has lots of pork. The deficit can be cut, immediately, by less spending -- say a 10% cut all fed salaries, etc. But it (prolly) won't happen. Until the Dems accept that deficits are so bad for the future, that CUTS today are justified, and they can name the cuts.

And heck, there might be enough Bush-hate and big deficits to make the Dems start seriously looking to cut stuff; many Reps would vote for non-military cuts proposed by Dems.

Estimates of the future are never truth or lies, they're estimates. With error rates. Even global warming (tax gas!!! yechh ... but...)

 

 

Michael notes that current polls show a blow out for Bush, from Tim Blair to a keen map making site.>>Bush may be a crony capitalist big-business supporter, but the economy is doing incredibly well considering the dot.com bubble AND 9/11.

And Bush did good to boot Saddam.

How can the Dems run against a big deficit? Where are they gonna cut? No cuts, well, that means, punish, er, tax the rich!

It is FUN. Too much. Now, get to work, or else your job is going to Shanghai, or is that Bangalore; or how about Bratislava? (Bratislava? Never heard of it! 50 miles East of Vienna, cap of Slovakia -- my job's already here, you see.)

 

Roger opens his ballot, including his change of minds>>Mina, see CNN for SOTU; 3rd paragraph "thousands of American servicemen and women", later "skilled and determined military', "dealing with thugs in Iraq", "taken the hardest duty... skill and courage ... sorrow when one is lost", "America is proud of you." The Pres. was pretty darn good in supporting & acknowledging the US military.

Debra, I'll prolly support Bush, though the Libertarian party (Harry Browne? who cares -- it's the real small gov't party of principle) is the one to go for if you really want less gov't. Especially in a close election, since a Lib vote can't really be misinterpreted as a big gov't vote, AND the losing side is more likely to steal the best ideas of the Libs.

Unfortunately, politics is biased in favor of big gov't -- solving problems, doing things, being good, etc. While hiding the ugly truth that they use tax money, money taken by the threat of violence, by force, to do whatever they do. [Or they borrow, printing 'counterfeit' money (which may result in the inflation tax).]

Roger, great idea, making your blog open ballot! I'm very interested in John E. because the US needs a good Dem in order to make the Rep public position better, less pork filled. Maybe even take the best Lib. idea (vouchers? um, Reps already got that one. Limited drug legalization? helps in the terror war...)

But, after personally experiencing negative emotional problems, I'm become a supporter of abstinence for the unmarried, and faithfulness for the married. Yes, it helps that I'm happily married. But I used to believe in "responsible promiscuity". Now I don't think it's generally possible. Although I won't claim none can follow it, I DO claim more are hurt trying to follow it than would be hurt trying to be chaste.

And the idea of responsible promiscuity is particularly bad for poor people. More divorce, more abortions, more unwed mothers; more children of poor folk who can't read when they get out of high school. I believe promiscuity is a big, negative influence. What do you believe about abstinence & poverty?

 

 

Donald refers to Belmont club and the special forces being used in the Bekaa valley, to root out Syria’s domination of Lebannon. >>It would be great! Well could be; and prolly would be under Bush. We need a world without dictators, and military force is the fastest, though perhaps not the cheapest (though maybe), and perhaps not the most moral (though maybe); perhaps not the best way, though maybe.

But actual war prolly not before Nov. 2004, unless there is really good intel that Saddam's WMDs are in the Bekaa...

 

Donald also notes that the OSB is putting the start of the recession into Nov 2000, thus under Clinton; but also claiming no matter.>> Actually, it DOES matter that the recession was Clinton's, and that Bush jacked up the deficit to counter it. Bush's deficits then become, arguably, Clinton's fault -- until the current recovery.

That's Keynesian theory; gov't should deficit spend in recession to avoid depression. Bush did that. Now, will he start cutting spending to avoid inflation?

The painful joblessness of the recovery, as well as the slowly sinking (rapidly?) dollar, mean that inflation is not yet a big problem. Should be around, let me guess, Dec, 2004! A tight budget then? I'll believe it when I see it; actually a bit more likely from a Dem.

 

++[Michael on metropoliticals]>>It's too soon to be sure of Dem or Rep in Nov, unless you're already party committed. John Edwards has a 56 page .pdf on his positions, that I downloaded but slept on instead of reading last night. I suspect it's full of fine generalizations of desirable outcomes, without the tough choices of how to fund gov't actions. The big gov't Dems like endless gov't programs, paid for by "somebody else"; what a lie, but that's what Bush is giving the country, anyway.

The libertarian position of civil AND economic liberty will be influential to both parties, in differing amounts at different times. The losing Dems are most likely to take more of the most popular; perhaps ending the war on drug (using people).

But Pakistan has nukes, so all Islamic dictatorships are in line to get them in the next decade or so. Every dictatorship that is left alone will, in the not too distant future, have nukes. This is real, and really scary -- even to me in Slovakia. Lots of red states coming.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/26/04 22:44 | link | comments

Winds of Change notes the silly UK Lib Dem MP who thinks, if she was in a Pali situation, hopeless, she might become a suicide bomber, too. >>Ross has a point, a very good point.
WHY is there "no hope for the future"?
WHY can't the PA help this woman and her family have a house, educate her children, create a little more wealth?

WHY? Because of Arafat.

There's little hope without free speech.  When Arafat assited Pali thugs take children out of schools, and send them to throw rocks at Israelis -- and kill any who disagree; there is little hope with Arafat.

And the world ignores the Pali killing Pali scourge, so there's little hope there.

Where is the Pali newspaper calling on Arafat to step down, to resign???  Nowhere, and no hope -- until the UN and the external folk start demanding that Palis start respecting the human rights of the people living there.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/23/04 21:11 | link | comments

http://www.ornery.org/forums/essays/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=000405&p=2#000066

Ornery on Dems seeing the light, with Mech_Engr explaining how cutting a poor guy’s [income] tax in half is a bigger percentage cut than cutting a rich guys tax >> Good example ME, but you missed an "income" when you mentioned the rich paying so much.  In fact, all workers pay So. Sec. & other payroll taxes, etc., in the case of So. Sec. the middle classes usually pay a higher proportion of their income.

 

As I'm sure you know, and possibly even support -- I do.  I'd favor a 10 or even 15% required retirement savings account, so people retire on THEIR money, instead of on somebody else's money (as we have now).

 

All over the world, destructive envy tries to stop anybody from doing "too well".  Those who care about Bill Gates' multi-million $ home, and consider it unfair, and thus unjust, are really too filled with envy.

 

The biggest help to any deserving poor person is to offer them a job, or a better job.  When Dems understand this, they'll be more helpful; lower taxes on business are the best way to get more offers of better jobs to more folks.

++ By the way, Jed's silly "Wealth's not created, it's just transferred" is a huge distraction; since subjective value is so key to wealth.  Somebody with a 3 bedroom house and no fear of children being kidnapped might well feel wealthier, and choose the 3 bedroom life over a huge mansion behind security walls, lots more money, and a fear of having his kids held for ransom (in South America, for instance).

 

But accountants, and making investment decisions to minimize taxes, actually reduce the amount of wealth created by greatly reducing taxes paid by a person/ organization.  It makes economic sense for an org to spend $3 mil on risky/ silly investment that returns only $2 mil, in order to save $1.5 mil in taxes, even if it costs an extra $100k to the accountant. 

 

The current tax mess is full of this nonsense -- a flat rate tax (like Russia!  Like Slovakia!) would reduce this.  In Russia's case, it substantially increased the tax revenue.  It was just passed in Slovakia, will be closer to neutral (deliberately), but in both cases it increases the ...

Return on Investment.

 

Big RoI in the past is why the US is so wealthy today, and why Japan has been stagnating for over a decade, despite the Japanese having much higher savings rates.  Just putting huge amounts of Talants in the ground is not a good investment (see the Bible!).  RoI is the nearest measure to wealth creation we have (all reduced to $ though, more or less security not well included)

 

The rich are usually rich because they have the talent/ skill of squeezing higher RoI out of investment dollars, and thus creating bigger future pies; so, in theory, everybody can have a bigger piece.

++ Final point, tax cuts to avoid Clinton's HUGE dot.com bubble popped recession was a good idea; it worked so well many folk forget that a 1929 sized wealth evaporation occurred under Clinton, but Bush's tax cuts (and Greenspan's fed rate reductions) really let the USA have a soft, soft landing.  Few Euro countries have less than 7% unemployment ...

 

The tax cut went some to consumers, who kept demand up, buying stuff (on credit, etc); and it went to the rich, who can invest it, and create/ save jobs.

Nobody,

and I mean nobody, knows what the optimal macro balance is -- and few even agree on what could measure that balance (I suggest unemployment).  I suspect Bush's cuts were pretty close to optimal, given the HUGE bubble pop.  Nobody will ever be able to prove it, though, even if it's true -- or not.  Such is the state of the art of economics.

 

http://www.tu-freiberg.de/~wwwfak6/paper/schoenfelder_3_2003.pdf

An interesting paper about the weak response to bankruptcy in CEE, including criticizing the reluctance to go after individual debtors who have helped cause the bankruptcy.

 

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000640.htm

Roger discusses another debate, sad that Edwards fumbled on a question about Islam.  Comments drifted on about Bush and the deficit>>Lower taxes means better investment, by owners who want to profit.  Lower tax rates on businesses means smarter investments, since tax dodges are relatively less beneficial.

 

Most gov't spending has lots of pork.  The deficit can be cut, immediately, by less spending -- say a 10% cut all fed salaries, etc.  But it (prolly) won't happen.  Until the Dems accept that deficits are so bad for the future, that CUTS today are justified, and they can name the cuts.

 

And heck, there might be enough Bush-hate and big deficits to make the Dems start seriously looking to cut stuff; many Reps would vote for non-military cuts proposed by Dems.

 

Estimates of the future are never truth or lies, they're estimates.  With error rates.  Even global warming (tax gas!!! yechh ... but...)

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000248.html

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

Michael notes that current polls show a blow out for Bush, from Tim Blair to a keen map making site.>>Bush may be a crony capitalist big-business supporter, but the economy is doing incredibly well considering the dot.com bubble AND 9/11.

 

And Bush did good to boot Saddam.

 

How can the Dems run against a big deficit?  Where are they gonna cut?  No cuts, well, that means, punish, er, tax the rich!

 

It is FUN.  Too much.  Now, get to work, or else your job is going to Shanghai, or is that Bangalore; or how about Bratislava?  (Bratislava?  Never heard of it!  50 miles East of Vienna, cap of Slovakia -- my job's already here, you see.)

 

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000637.htm#comments

Roger opens his ballot, including his change of minds>>Mina, see CNN for SOTU; 3rd paragraph "thousands of American servicemen and women", later "skilled and determined military', "dealing with thugs in Iraq", "taken the hardest duty... skill and courage ... sorrow when one is lost", "America is proud of you."  The Pres. was pretty darn good in supporting & acknowledging the US military.

 

Debra, I'll prolly support Bush, though the Libertarian party (Harry Browne?  who cares -- it's the real small gov't party of principle) is the one to go for if you really want less gov't.  Especially in a close election, since a Lib vote can't really be misinterpreted as a big gov't vote, AND the losing side is more likely to steal the best ideas of the Libs.

 

Unfortunately, politics is biased in favor of big gov't -- solving problems, doing things, being good, etc.  While hiding the ugly truth that they use tax money, money taken by the threat of violence, by force, to do whatever they do.  [Or they borrow, printing 'counterfeit' money (which may result in the inflation tax).]

 

Roger, great idea, making your blog open ballot!  I'm very interested in John E. because the US needs a good Dem in order to make the Rep public position better, less pork filled.  Maybe even take the best Lib. idea (vouchers?  um, Reps already got that one.  Limited drug legalization?  helps in the terror war...)

 

But, after personally experiencing negative emotional problems, I'm become a supporter of abstinence for the unmarried, and faithfulness for the married.  Yes, it helps that I'm happily married.  But I used to believe in "responsible promiscuity".  Now I don't think it's generally possible. Although I won't claim none can follow it, I DO claim more are hurt trying to follow it than would be hurt trying to be chaste.

 

And the idea of responsible promiscuity is particularly bad for poor people.  More divorce, more abortions, more unwed mothers; more children of poor folk who can't read when they get out of high school.  I believe promiscuity is a big, negative influence.  What do you believe about abstinence & poverty?

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107483473624369362

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_belmontclub_archive.html#107481280820783909

Donald refers to Belmont club and the special forces being used in the Bekaa valley, to root out Syria’s domination of Lebannon. >>It would be great! Well could be; and prolly would be under Bush. We need a world without dictators, and military force is the fastest, though perhaps not the cheapest (though maybe), and perhaps not the most moral (though maybe); perhaps not the best way, though maybe.

 

But actual war prolly not before Nov. 2004, unless there is really good intel that Saddam's WMDs are in the Bekaa...

 

Donald also notes that the OSB is putting the start of the recession into Nov 2000, thus under Clinton; but also claiming no matter.>> Actually, it DOES matter that the recession was Clinton's, and that Bush jacked up the deficit to counter it.  Bush's deficits then become, arguably, Clinton's fault -- until the current recovery.

 

That's Keynesian theory; gov't should deficit spend in recession to avoid depression.  Bush did that.  Now, will he start cutting spending to avoid inflation? 

 

The painful joblessness of the recovery, as well as the slowly sinking (rapidly?) dollar, mean that inflation is not yet a big problem.  Should be around, let me guess, Dec, 2004!  A tight budget then?  I'll believe it when I see it; actually a bit more likely from a Dem.

 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000246.html

++[Michael on metropoliticals]>>It's too soon to be sure of Dem or Rep in Nov, unless you're already party committed.  John Edwards has a 56 page .pdf on his positions, that I downloaded but slept on instead of reading last night.  I suspect it's full of fine generalizations of desirable outcomes, without the tough choices of how to fund gov't actions.  The big gov't Dems like endless gov't programs, paid for by "somebody else"; what a lie, but that's what Bush is giving the country, anyway.

 

The libertarian position of civil AND economic liberty will be influential to both parties, in differing amounts at different times.  The losing Dems are most likely to take more of the most popular; perhaps ending the war on drug (using people). 

 

But Pakistan has nukes, so all Islamic dictatorships are in line to get them in the next decade or so.  Every dictatorship that is left alone will, in the not too distant future, have nukes.  This is real, and really scary -- even to me in Slovakia.  Lots of red states coming.

 

22 January 2004

Gabriel Syme at Samizdata on multiculturism having problems>> Assimilation starts with language, and is mostly language.  I hope the Dutch focus on schools, in Dutch (and English? OR English?), and speaking Dutch as a pre-requisite for immigrating, and for getting benefits.

 

National work schemes as a duty for those who receive benefits might be good, too.

 

Big ghettos are terrible, but small communities needed, since friendly support is so effective in the West.  And it will be very interesting, in the budget crunching coming, to see how the Dutch react to the fact that coercion is usually much cheaper than bribes.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/23/04 20:45 | link | comments

Donald, too, discusses metropolitical >>And what about us pro-war, anti-tax, small gov’t types, who think Bush is overspending, where do WE go?  I haven’t heard of any serious Dem discuss budget cuts, only tax hikes.  At least Bush II is avoiding the silly mistake of Bush I “read my lips” and raising taxes.

 

But the small/ big gov't splits, social vs economic, usually favored by Libertarians, also fail with pro- anti- war. 

 

Choosing a mix of desirables and undesirables has always been there, and will continue to be there.  But the +- gov't values on a) econ, b) society, and now c) war on terror, are FAR more mixed (3 * 3) than just the 2 * 2 matrix before.

Thus big gov't control over econ, society, and war; vs small gov't econ, society, and anti-war -- and all combos in between, like mine: small, small, pro-war.

Slavery was a similar third dimension.  Abortion was almost a third dimension, but Dem purists purged all pro-life out (eg Jesse Jackson flipped to be pro-abortion).. 

 

 

At about 800 000 000 gals/ day of use petro products (about 20 000 000 b/d, 42 gal = 1 barrel)

 

 

 

Michael disses the Nation about The Myth of Rising Anti-Semitism, asking who would have thought it after 9/11? >>I recall thinking, and mentioning to my wife on 9/11/01, that there was going to be a bigger push for a Pali state.  And more scrutiny and criticism of Israel.

 

The Nation article's point is not clear to me in the first or last fifth, but seems to want to claim new anti-Semitism is not a problem because it's not really new.  Weasel words around "new", while paying some lip service to condemnation of acts against Jews (at least, still).

 

The opacity of the Nation's argument, not explained here or on Roger's site, makes me feel the title is most important "The myth ...", strongly implying there is no new anti-Semitism.

 

The Left is just too full of those who hate any successful money grubbers, especially if they can blame Pali problems on them.

 

Roger on the Dean’s Dean Horse, but one comment says he wants “his country back”>> What country 'back'???  Don't you really mean, "we want gov't to keep punishment, er, taxes high on the rich to pay for middle class entitlements, er, for the poor (wink wink)?"

 

Oh wait, I remember the country.  Where Amazon.com is worth more than GM & Ford combined.  Where the dot.com bubble remains unpopped. THAT country was the end