You are currently browsing the Detailed Balance weblog archives for February, 2009.
Friday, 6 February 2009 by bbbeard.
The Kennedy tax cut was stimulative. The Reagan tax cut was stimulative. The Bush tax cut was stimulative. Is He really unaware of these basic economic facts?
The Japanese experience with huge public works programs in place of stimulus is unimpressive. So why is He trying to emulate it?
Oh, wait, I forgot — He’s an “intellectual”.
People like Him give intellectuals a bad name.
Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 1 Comment »
Friday, 6 February 2009 by bbbeard.
Gee, I would have thought an economic downturn would be a great time for companies to start making profits.
Posted in Politics & Society | Print | No Comments »
Friday, 6 February 2009 by bbbeard.
First, win.
Then, decide which laws you don’t like. And just stop enforcing them.
Posted in Politics & Society | Print | No Comments »
Thursday, 5 February 2009 by bbbeard.
H has arrogated to himself the power to set executive salaries.
I’ve gone back and reviewed Articles I and II of the Constitution and I can’t find any clause that remotely gives the federal government, much less the President, the power to set salary caps on officers of private enterprises, even as minority shareholders in these companies. They can because they can. “I Won“, declares the Guy Who Is Fuzzy About All That ConLaw Stuff.
No doubt this measure will be more popular than some actions H has undertaken recently, and some initiatives like the “stimulus“, because class envy is so easy to stoke. That is, after all, why we are saddled with a income tax — which was originally sold as being a tax on the very wealthy.
As far as I can see, there is no reason to think our Dear Leader will stop at executive salaries. With a national health care system in the offing, we are not far from the day when doctors’ salaries are set by the state. Once doctors’ salaries are capped, there is no reason not to cap nurses’, or techs’, salaries, or that of the guy that delivers the pizza. None of this sounds unreasonable to someone who is ignorant of economics.
“Why is all this bad?” you devotees of St. More exclaim. Why shouldn’t our wise and all-knowing Dear Leader set the salaries for everyone? After all, capitalism is a sham, right? All that stuff about people responding to economic incentives is just right-wing mythology, isn’t it?
Sadly, no. These decisions will have real, negative, impacts on real people. The companies who are forced to accept these terms will find that the people they expected to lead them to better times will have better things to do. The people that move up to fill those vacancies will find a half-million dollar salary exhilarating but the job too tough to be worth it –especially when they know that getting a raise will literally take an act of Congress. Doctors who are currently compensated for saving lives or teaching medical students will find that they too, have better uses for their time. So the people employed by those companies or healed by those doctors will find they are out of a job or can’t find a doctor to work on their pancreas. And the taxpayers that fund all this bailout mismanagement will get stuck with the bill.
To top it off, I’ve heard at least one correspondent explain that no executive should earn more than the President. This is wrong on so many levels that a separate blog post is justified.
BTW, “slippery slope” is only a fallacy if you are unable to provide justification for all the anticipated steps taking you to an undesired outcome.
Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 1 Comment »
Thursday, 5 February 2009 by bbbeard.
Our newly-minted Secretary of Energy says that unless we do something about global warming, there will be no agriculture in California a hundred years from now.
Is this claim part of the IPCC predictions, or is this an independent assessment by a laser guy? Okay, that’s a bit unfair, inasmuch as Steve Chu has been involved in climate change lobbying for a number of years. But it seems only inches short of the wilder “Earth has a fever” brand of climate zealotry. Is this really science “restored to its rightful place“? Or is this some guardian of a partisan viewpoint trying to spread the gospel? Plus ça change….
But I still find it baffling that people think they can project not only what climate will be like in 100 years, but also technology. Imagine someone in 1909 proposing drastic government-mandated restrictions on electricity production because numerical models indicate that coal reserves need to be conserved for use on steamships and railroads… or that the major capitals of the world should begin a phased depopulation because horse dung will be choking the streets of 2009….
Posted in Politics & Society, Science | Print | 1 Comment »