Who's on the New 10,000 Bill?

The other day, while listening to Glenn Beck's Moron Trivia, Glenn asked the question, "What denomination of US currency should Barack Obama be on"? As funny as this question may be, people actually did answer in a sincere way. As I began thinking about it, it is very possible we will soon need a new denomination of currency in the USD. My prediction is if these "bailouts" continue into the retail sectors of our economy, the US dollar will basically be worthless. As more and more dollars are pumped into our system, the value of each dollar in circulation decreases. So maybe we should start printing the 10,000 dollar bill again. We can even put Barack Obama's face on it. The basic principles of capitalism are under siege as we speak because government "bailouts" force a non-equilibrium state of the economy. Finally, President Bush has arisen from his coma and come to his senses about funding the "big-three" autos with government rescue money. However, the 'messiah' has commented that he will in fact send tax-payer dollars to help the US Auto Industry stay afloat.

I think we need to let the free market find new equilibrium in labor markets, retail markets, financial markets, and manufacturing markets etc... Implementing factors outside of the principles of supply and demand disrupt the money supply, and ultimately inflation. Anyone see gas prices lately? ($2.08 / gallon) Using the voice of Bill Lumburgh, "Yeah... its called supply and demand!"



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Stop the MADNESS...

Enough is enough! We need to end all of this "bailout" activity currently taking place in the U.S. economy. Lately, GM and Ford have stepped up to the welfare window for their handout , and it is not looking good. Did I miss the class in Business Management that taught, "grow your company big enough and the government won't let you fail."

Let's take a walk into history for a moment and look at what happened in the late 70's and 80's with US automakers. Prior to the mid-70's, bread and butter (non-luxury/daily driver) import vehicles were a rare occurrence for the average automobile owner here in the US. Early on, the American auto industry revolved around the idea of "planned obsolescence". Basically, they built cars that required maintenance, repairs, and eventually become obsolete and need to be totally replaced. We had a great model for perpetual repeat business on our hands. When imports such as Honda, and Nissan came into the picture, Americans began demanding longer lasting more fuel efficient vehicles that were readily available in foreign markets. As a result, demand for domestic vehicles began to decline and U.S. automaker profits began to dip. Did the government step in and to help out then? No! Instead, the realities of free market competition took place, and US automakers figured out how to re-acquire their market share by building better cars that lasted longer (Today, GM has a 100,000 mile warranty on their vehicles) . We need to do the same today.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler make good vehicles, but I think the labor unions have really undermined the natural competitive edge that is inherent with domestic autos. Rather than placing the blame on corporate executives, perhaps we should point the finger at labor unions for pushing wages, salaries, benefits, and pensions to unsustainable levels in this highly competitive worldwide industry. Let's face it, the Japanese do it so well because their costs are less.

The 'Big 3' need to be revamped, not bailed out. Why delay the inevitable by giving GM a government loan to continue doing business as usual? Adjustments need to be made, so let's let it happen automatically through layoffs, reorganization, and innovation. Also, let it be sooner rather than later.

There is no doubt that the fallout of a bankrupt GM or Ford would result in massive layoffs (estimated to be 1/5th of the U.S. work force), but Americans work best under pressure. I have full faith in the American worker to seek new opportunities to earn a living in the wake of an industry collapse. If the US automotive industry collapses, the government's only role should be to stay out of the way, and ensure that the barriers to entry into other free market industries are kept to a minimum. When the Steel industry collapsed here in the US (also caused by powerful labor unions), those people found new career opportunities elsewhere. My father was part of the steel bust here in Pittsburgh, PA (the Steel capital of the world in the 1970's). No he is not still collecting unemployment 30 years later. Instead, he started his own business within months of being laid off and went from unemployment to providing jobs for himself and for others. Don't spread the wealth, spread the opportunity!


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Change What?

I totally agree with my esteemed colleague regarding the race issue. It is a tremendous affirmation of the opportunity that exists here in America when a person can campaign on "hope" and "change" and win a Presidential election. Why am I the only one that has a problem with that? I have had 4 days to recover from the madness of election day, and have come to the conclusion that nothing is going to change! Follow the money trail left behind the $650 million dollars spent in the Obama campaign. That should give you an idea of where his interests will lie.

So far not a whole lot of change. Obama's first pick, Rahm Emmanual, as cheif of staff (this guys doesn't even pay his own property taxes). What is next, Charlie Rangle as secretary of labor? So I guess we can look forward to more of this kind of "change" Mr. Obama. Or wait... I get it! This whole time you were campaigning for "hope" and "change", you really meant "vote for obama so you can hope for change". That is about all we can do, "hope" that you are going to take us in the right direction.

With that said, I have no confidence in Barack Obama's ability to run this country. All he knows how to do is run for public office. I hope for our sake that I am wrong, but only time will tell. To all you libs out there, be careful that you wish for!





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Election Aftermath

As you know, I am quite disappointed with the outcome of the election.

Let me start by saying that as a proud American, I respect and support President elect Obama as the leader of our country, despite our many differences (this concept is foreign to many liberals, who use hate and slander against any differing viewpoint). There are also a number of positive things that will result from him being elected.

I'm glad that the race barrier has been crossed. This alone has caused significant interest around the world. It's great that anyone really can rise to the top of this great nation - the American dream fulfilled. With that said, I hope now that we have reached this important milestone, the next election will be about the issues rather than the race of the candidates.

A number of people told me that if Obama was not elected, Americans are racist. Let's admit it - America wanted to elect a black candidate to show that we could. I say this because Obama was never forced to take a firm stand on most issues. "Hope" and "Change" was enough for most supporters, who never asked him to explain what exactly this meant.

Congratulations to the Democrats, who ran a more effective campaign and capitalized on the unpopularity of George Bush. I'm glad you have control of both the executive and legislative branches of government -use this opportunity to put through every policy and law you want. Just remember that 2 years or so from now, there won't be anyone else to blame (I'm sure you will try).

Personally, I will heed the advice of John McCain "We're Americans - we always fight, we never give up... we don't run from history, we make history!". His concession speech showed grace and class that is very rare today and should serve as a model to others.

The pendulum will swing back again.

-Justin





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Quick... Give Georgie Back His Congress!

I have taken quite a bit of time to research the facts about our economy for the past 39 years. I have made two spreadsheets that reflect Presidential Rule, and Majority Rule (A party holds a majority in both houses of congress, or the presidency and one side of congress, or all three). All of my data is backed up as factual information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I have blocked off the Political Party at the helm of the economy using red for Republican, and Blue for Democrat.

MAJORITY RULE vs. PRESIDENTIAL RULE

Look at the numbers and form your own opinion. Pay close attention to Rates of inflation and Unemployment. Also take a look at the staggering numbers that a super majority (not a super majority pertaining to one branch, but a super majority in that all three levels of government are held by one party as a majority) in either party create. George Bush is the only republican to have a Republican House Majority and Senate Majority backing him up. As a result he wiped the floor against Jimmy Carter and Clinton's 6 year combined averages. Also, Georgie isn't that bad after all. During his presidency we enjoyed lower rates of inflation, and unemployment, than the 39 year average. All of this in the wake of a terror attack on U.S. soil, 2 devastating natural disasters, and 2 wars.

Ouch, look out if Obama wins and gets his own toy Congress. I am willing to bet it looks something like Carter and the Gang back in the 70's (high unemployment and high inflation). Better brush up on your soup kitchen manners, or the soup Nazi will not "Spread the Soup".

Let the numbers speak for themselves.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Completely Speechless....

For the first time in this election cycle I am speechless. View this if you can handle it.






This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

THE MAC IS BACK

Governor Arnold electrified the crowd in Columbus, Ohio yesterday and made the case for real life action hero John McCain. Arnold explains why he left Austria decades ago, due to the socialist policies that stifled growth and restricted opportunities. These stifling socialist policies are the same ideas Senator Obama proposes. Now Europe finally gets it and has learned from us, but Senator Obama wants to make us like Europe in the 70s!

Gov. Arnold: "I'm gonna make Senator Obama do some squats" - awesome!







This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

If Obama is elected - I won't have to pay my mortgage anymore!

I found this statement particularly enlightening. Listen to what Obama's supporters believe will happen if he is elected - all of their financial problems will be taken care of by the government!

Guess what America - if you pay your bills and Obama is elected you'll be paying for deadbeats around the country! According to Obama, it would be selfish not to give some of your money to poor people you don't even know!





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Fear, Emotion, Passion.... "ILLOGICAL!" Says Mr. Spock

Even though I think Passion in politics is a great place to start, it is not logical for a person to get emotional about politics and economics. Often times people get into heated political debates with me, and they tend to get very emotional in the process. Perhaps they get this way because I love to “pick a fight”, or perhaps they are just plain old passionate about their point of view. Passion drives curiosity, and curiosity seeks for truth. When people find out the truth, they are quickly stunned, almost like a deer in headlights. Getting emotional about economics and politics is problematic because we tend to run off with the emotion and forget how to present LOGICAL arguments. Emotions cloud our ability to think rationally and ultimately our ability to make sound decisions.

With that said, Obama is absolutely a brilliant presidential candidate in this regard. He is playing on the emotions (particularly anger and fear) of the people. Throughout history, the candidate that can key in on the emotions of the people always wins the election. (Kennedy and Reagan are other great examples). Obama is doing so well because he is an excellent salesman. He can get you to believe that "Bush's Policies" have failed, and everything negative that has happened during his term is his fault. Any good salesman will point out "your pain" and key in on it. Then they will offer a solution to that pain. If the cost of the solution "APPEARS" (Obama the magician) to be less than the pain itself, you will buy.

In the article, “The Obama Temptation” my colleague explored a piece written by Mark Levin which points out that there is a “cult-like” following of Obama. Barack Obama followers are like a moth to a flame. They are so mesmerized by “Hope” and “Change.” As a result, they are completely and utterly numb to the flaws in his logic, his radical associations, and his statement “spread the wealth.” Not to mention his stance on the issues. Clearly he has managed to drive his base to a level of emotion that is totally illogical. Emotions are running high in the Obama campaign, and there is no “counter-emotion” that can snap people out of it. Therefore, rather than trying to invoke emotion, we should ask questions that draw out logical thinking and ultimately rational decision making.

When all else fails, point to the Constitution. We should not be deciding who should be the next President based on emotions or fear. Nor can we vote based on associations, education level, merit, or even intentions. (I would agree that both McCain and Obama INTEND to do us well by their ideas...). But, I think we should be voting based on their willingness to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States...After all, this is the Presidential Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Who do you think will best preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and why do you think this way? Emotion vs. Logic - Polar opposites!



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Wealth CREATES More Wealth

Even the Communists in China know how to create more wealth, by lowering the barriers of investment. Communist China has a small 10% Capital Gains Tax on asset earnings. With that kind of incentive for people and business to create wealth, it is no wonder why they are an 'up and comer' in the world market.

Obama plans to increase the capital gains tax rate to from 15-28% (87% increase) for incomes over $250,000, and revert back to the Clinton era 20% rate (33% increase) for everyone under $250,000. In either case, a capital gains or dividends tax is targeting the wealthiest individuals. This group, the top 10%, own 97% of the nations wealth (stocks, bonds, mutual fund, liquid cash, property, and other assets). I also submit to you that these people are wealthy not because they took it from someone or something. They CREATED their wealth. Some argue that the wealthy deserve their rewards because of the risk that they have incurred for their ventures. This is true! But, not only do they deserve it for taking big risks, they also deserve big rewards for making others wealthy. As capitalists seek out new ways to add to their own wealth, they help others create wealth in the process.

Let us take Bill Gates as an example. It is a known fact that he has made other people more money than he has made for himself. After all, Microsoft would not be what it is today if it were not for personnel and capital. I would say his reward for helping others in this regard is completely justified. Let's face it, entrepreneurs know how to create wealth. They do it by redeploying their earnings into their businesses, or their investment portfolio in order to make more. Not by taking it from someone else.

Let us assume (for just a small moment in time) that that the Libs are right, and all capitalists are "greedy." Well, in that case, "greed is good" (famous words of Gordon Gecko). If we are in fact greedy, and only yearn to make more, we are going to do it with the only two tools available (capital and personnel). Without capital and personnel, additional wealth cannot be created. If you penalize me more for making more, what would the incentive be to use addition personnel and capital (at an added cost from taxes) to create more wealth? Raising capital gains is not congruent with growing an economy. It would only further stifle the economy, by decreasing capital investment and decreasing the need for additional personnel (unemployment). The notion that "spreading the wealth around" will grow an economy from the bottom up is completely preposterous.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.