Speaking Up for Capitalism

Here, Gregg Sherrill offers his praise of capitalism, noting that,

"the Economist reports in a feature titled "The 70-30 Nation," the Pew Research Center asked respondents whether they were better off in a free market rather than a socialist economy "even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time." Seventy percent said yes."

Mr. Sherrill then asks, "so why the 30% in charge of the 70%?  Good question, folks.

If 70% of Americans believe they are better off with capitalism, then why are we headed so far down the road to socialism?  Did people not understand that BHO is a socialist, elitist, paternalistic narcissist?

Events with General Stanley McCrystal demonstrate all too clearly that BHO has thin, self-adulatory skin.  BHO didn't fire McCrystal because he was doing a bad job; BHO fired him because BHO is a narcissist who can't tolerate criticism.

But I digress.  The real point of my message today is to applaud Mr. Sherrill for stating the obvious.  And of course, I will be quick to add that capitalism is the only moral social system available to humans, since it relies on voluntary exchange instead of compulsion to order society. 

By the way, the "severe ups and downs" referred to in the Pew Research Center poll are caused by government, not capitalism.  I have invited you to read about it here on several occasions.

BHO's Debt and Deficit Commission

Watch this video for an amazingly clear illustration of the scope of the problem we face with the federal budget and the national debt.

The problem isn't debt or deficit.  The problem is federal government spending.  In the end, folks, only one solution exists for the problem BHO's commission is supposed to address.  You already know what it is, don't you?

Mr. Mitchell Nailed This One

Read here Daniel Mitchell's entirely correct assessment of TARP and what's happening to the self-serving politicians who voted for it.  You go, Daniel.

The Regulators Continue to Fail

Read here about how Toyota has been hosed by the government and the federal government's evident desire to give an edge to GM (Government Motors).

"NHTSA has been able to verify only one of those fatal crashes was caused by a problem with the vehicle, according to information the agency provided to the National Academy of Sciences. That accident last Aug. 28, which killed a California highway patrolman and three passengers in a Lexus, was traced to a floor mat that trapped the gas pedal in the depressed position."

Guess what.  My floor mats sometimes get shoved out of place and interfere with the brake pedal and accelerator pedal.  I move the floor mats back into place.  Ah, duh.

Someone please tell us again why we should believe that the onslaught against Toyota has been anything except a government engineered assist to GM.  Regulators and regulations continue to fail, and they do it on your dime (oops, sorry; it's your trillions of dollars in taxes).

The Finance Reform Bill

For readers interested in truly expert analysis of the financial reform bill the Senate is about ready to pass, read these two links: here and here.

Once again, the Democrat led Congress is about to impose its will on we the people.  Yep, hosed again.  Come November, maybe we can all remember to follow the creed of the New Blood Party.  Read about that here.

Based on history, we have no reason to think the Republicans would be doing a better job than the Democrats.  For me, this isn't about party politics.  It's about liberty and American values.  Send a loud message.  Join the New Blood Party today.

Is Sweden A Successful Socialist State?

Just in case anyone still thinks that Sweden is a modern example of a successful socialist state, they may want to give this article a read.

Socialism (or any other form of big government) requires that a small set of adults compel another much larger set of adults to shut up and do what they are told.  Is there really any mystery about why socialist states fail to generate flourishing societies?

A very large majority of the world's population live in poverty.  That same very large majority of the world's population live in societies based on compulsion of the many by the few.  Ah, duh. 

History remains utterly clear about what works and what doesn't when it comes to human interaction.  Voluntary exchange succeeds.  Compulsion, regardless of the form it takes (dictatorship, socialism, communism, democracy), fails.  Voluntary exchange is moral; compulsion is immoral --- just an additional benefit of voluntary exchange.

Should Unemployment Benefits Be Extended Again?

Arthur Laffer explains here why additional unemployment benefits will not lower the unemployment rate and won't speed our recovery from the recession --- a recession the federal government caused in the first place.  He writes,

the resources given to the unemployed have to be taken from someone else. There isn't a "tooth fairy," or as my former colleague Milton Friedman repeated time and again, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." The government doesn't create resources. It redistributes them.  

Yes, of course.  But isn't it just plain mean to deny unemployed workers another extension of benefits?

Which is meaner: taking Peter's bread to help Paul remain a bit picky about getting back to work, or making it clear to Paul that if he wants to eat he will need to work, even if it isn't a job he'd like?

"But there aren't any jobs," say the Democrats.  Of course there are jobs; they just aren't the jobs the unemployed think they should have.  But for the sake of argument, let's suppose there really aren't ANY jobs to be had.  What then?

I know this will strike many readers as absurd, but what about creating one's own job? " Impossible," you say?  It's hardly impossible, though it's certainly old school.  What in the world would all these unemployed folks do if they found themselves on an island with no one around to give them a job?

If the federal government really wants to get serious about reducing unemployment and stimulating the economy, then Congress should repeal most of the massive volumes of regulations and taxes that make it ever-more expensive for entrepreneurs to offer others a job.

Once again, why is that we are in a recession in the first place? What will end the recession in the second place?  In case you have forgotten, or never read about it in the first place, read this.

Preview of Obama Care

Rather simple logic leads us to understand how it will all work out under Obama Care.  We don't really need a test case to understand it.  Anyone who survived an ECON 101 class somewhere in their past (and stayed awake at the same time) already understands.

But just in case you wanted empirical, historical evidence to confirm what economic theory predicts, just look to Massachusetts and the results of its implementation of BHO's dream health care plan.  You can read all about it here.

Wouldn't it be nice if health care were inexpensive or even free?  Yes, and it be even nicer if no one ever got sick or injured?  But neither will ever be the case, regardless of what BHO and the politicians in Massachusetts say.


As it is with all other economic goods and services, health care must be produced using scarce resources.  The owners of those scarce resources will require payment for their use.  After all, you don't work for free, do you?  Why would you expect health care providers to do so?

And as it is with all other prices, prices for health care cannot be capped by politicians without entirely predictable results.  As all students of economics understand, if prices are capped by law below voluntary exchange values, we get shortages, declining quality, underground markets, and rationing by some criteria other than willingness and ability to pay the voluntary exchange price.

Rationing scarcity by any method other than voluntary exchange prices also leads to predictable results.  As P.J. O'Rourke says, "when prices are set by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold is legislators."  Of course, that's just the way legislators like it.

Here are ten more lessons from history about price controls and government fiat. One might think we would have learned by now, but one would be wrong.

Saving? Forget About It

Here, George Melloan explains something I have been telling my readers for years now.  The Fed is creating new money to finance the federal government's debt.

Whether you like big government or not is only part of the issue.  Just as Melloan explains, the Fed's monetary policy ensures that savers lose and moochers win.

Here and here, I've explained before that you can't really borrow what has not yet been produced.  The Fed and the U.S. Treasury are full of smart people who do understand this simple point.

I'm even willing to bet the BHO and his crew of famous economists are smart enough to understand it.  If they do understand it, that makes those smart people thieves, not just innocent bumblers.  Steal from the savers and give to the moochers.

Ask the leaders of Greece how those policies worked out for them.

Here Are Your Leaders, Folks

Here, John Taylor explains why the two pictured below deserve all the scorn anyone cares to heap on them.  

Would you buy a used car from either of these two pretenders?