A Better Life Than Julia’s

Wednesday, June 20, AD 2012

 

Another fine, and timelyecon 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.

This is a response to the daft Obama campaign’s Life of Julia, that hymn to life as a government serf.  The truth is that in this life you have to depend upon God, yourself and, if you are lucky, your family.  Government assistance must exist for people who cannot take care of themselves, but as a way of life for those who can, it is soul destroying, trapping us, at best, in a permanent status of child-like dependence on the State, a dependence that is increasingly precarious as governments sink under the burden of unsustainable spending.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to A Better Life Than Julia’s

  • TRUTH.

    “God helps those that help themselves.”

    The welfare state rewards and fosters bad behavior; and each generation of state dependents grows more numerous and more miserable.

  • Emily comes across as cold and as isolated as Julia, and maybe a touch more smug. At least she doesn’t produce a government-financed kid along the way, who disappears as soon as he can get into day care.

  • When people aren’t living off my dime I tend to be fairly tolerant of foibles that I am not required to pay for.

  • I cannot find the cite but thought it was one of the books in Asimov’s Foundation or related series where in the robots obey the three laws and protect humans so well that humans are not allowed to do anything that might “endanger” them. Humans are slowly dying out and the robots cannot understand why. This is how I imagine government taking care of us – so stifling that in the end it kills us all.

    I do not what to discuss the problems with Asimov and his writings/theories/views but wanted to address the problem with unintended consequences and what happens to man when you protect him “too much”.

    I know the original Star Trek series seemed to have this theme in many of its episodes.

    Ophs, I think my geek/nerd is showing!

  • Independence of government is not that easy to achieve,

    I am the latest in a long line of Scottish peasant farmers, which one might imagine provides me with a life of sturdy independence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Regulations, quotas and subsidies mean that I am, to all intents and purposes, a government functionary, managing my quota of land on behalf of the state or, rather, the European Union. I understand the position in the United States is not dissimilar.

    I supplement my income by practicing as an advocate, both here and in France. As such, I benefit from the exclusive right of audience before the courts that the state grants to members of the Faculty of Advocates or the Barreau de Paris – Effectively, a Trade Union closed-shop.

    Financial dependence on the state is by no means the preserve of the underclass.

  • “Financial dependence on the state is by no means the preserve of the underclass.”

    Perhaps revolution is in order – turn the thieves out on their hind ends.

  • CatholicLawyer: Right author, wrong book. You refer to “I, Robot.”

  • I am waiting for when my generation will the ones in diplomatic positions, my general expectation is a bunch of incompitant people who decide things based on barbaric whims I hope that means they won’t have a functioning military to stop me from taking over DelMarVa mwahahaha.

Lessons For America From the European Fiscal Meltdown

Monday, November 21, AD 2011

Another fine econ 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.   This video exlores the lessons that America can learn from the current European fiscal and debt crisis.

The lessons are very simple:

1.  Higher taxes lead to higher government expenditure and not reduction of government debt.

2.  A value added tax is a recipe for run-away government expenditure.

3.   A welfare state breeds dependency.

4.   Fiscal reform and reduction of government expenditure is impossible once more people are living off the government than are paying taxes to support the government.

5.   Bailouts do not work.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Lessons For America From the European Fiscal Meltdown

  • Let a candidate take those exact 5 points and build a platform of specifics for election 2012, using campaign funds to hire this young student with a clear, studied vision as advisor in chief. Why let history repeat itself.

    The person talking to the curtains in the opening video, who was pooling (how gross!)guns, religion, and antipathy as a result of frustration with government, isn’t on a path to avoid crippling what’s left of the human spirit.

    While the OWS are still enmass, wouldn’t it be great for them to have the benefit of this 7:05 minute lesson in Econ 101 for America?

  • It is less complicated.

    When government (taxes and spending) grows faster than GDP there will be a disaster.

    PM: It won’t work. They have been taught what to think (brainwashed), not how to think. While we have them all in one place, . . .

    Bray for peace!

  • Wow !!
    She had my vote well before the economics started 😉

    Seems that’s a lesson that most western governments need to take on board, but are turning a blind eye to.

  • 1. No
    2. No
    3. No
    4. No
    5. No

  • Art,

    Care to elaborate?

GDI v. GDP

Friday, December 10, AD 2010

Another  fine econ 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.  One of the main economic problems of our time is that we Americans tend to be experts at spending money and novices at making money.  I will have a post on Christ and Scrooge later this month which will be rather negative towards Scrooge. (Surprise!)  However, perhaps nationally we need a bit of the Scrooge attitude towards making money and less of the spendthrift habits that have been a disaster for us publicly and privately.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to GDI v. GDP

  • A beautiful chick discussing macroeconomics. I doubt I could properly define nerd porn, but I know it when I see it; and this video is definitely that!

    😀

  • Son of a gun, she is attractive! Before you pointed that out RL, I hadn’t noticed! 🙂

  • Ha! Nice save, Don! That may have appeased Mrs. McClarey, but I’m wise to you. You’re just another Larry Flynt. You’re perpetuating the demand for this exploitation. What if it is was your daughter fresh out of grad school, in despair over her debt, alone, afraid; then someone reaches out to her, makes her feel comfortable and wanted. He charms her with talk about the virtues of justice, temperance, fortitude, and even love. He tells her an economic system can incorporate those things too, and that it will help government and individuals posses those virtues too.

    What young girl can resist that, Don? That’s when he says, “hey, we can make a little movie in order to save the world.” We all know how how this sad story plays out from here…

  • Yeah, she eventually ends up running the Fed. At least that is what would happen if it were my daughter!

  • Next thing you know she’ll be hanging around some seedy Washington think tank.

  • No wait!

    Right-Wing.Think.Tank!!!

    She’s being exploited by one of them evil, secret conspiracies to steal money from indigent, undocumented immigrants and single parents’ children.

    Next she’ll sell out to FOXNEWS . . .

  • Even though I have an econ degree, if I see the letters GDI I think of the Global Defense Initiative from Command and Conquer…

  • Thanks to my son’s interest, I have all the games in the Command and Conquer series.

Government Monopolies v. Competition

Friday, August 27, AD 2010

Another fine econ 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.   That government monopolies like the post office and public schools deliver inferior service at greatly inflated cost is as well established as any fact can be this side of Eternity.  The mystery to me is why we still keep making this fundamental mistake of assuming that a government monopoly is necessary rather than  looking into new measures to reach the goal sought.  The faith in government, especially on the political Left, is as charming in its naivety as it is irrational.

The last century was often a long sad failure to heed the warnings of Rudyard Kipling in his poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings.  I hope this century will not repeat this inability to learn some very simple lessons about the limits of  both government and wishful thinking.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Government Monopolies v. Competition

  • That government monopolies like the post office and public schools deliver inferior service at greatly inflated cost is as well established as any fact can be this side of Eternity.

    I suppose that is why you and your Tea Party demanded government keep its hands off people’s Medicare.

  • That Obamacare is a dagger pointed at Medicare MZ is something that anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see. That Medicare is also bankrupt is obvious. Makes the prediction of this guy rather prescient:

  • I’m not a Tea Partier, nor do I wish the government to keep its hands off Medicare. Medicare is a government program and I wish they would do a better job of administering it.

    Even Obamacare isn’t a government monopoly. It may be bad or doomed to fail from the start (by design?) and lead to a government monopoly of health care, but it isn’t one as currently constituted.

  • What about government monopolies like the police, courts, and military?

  • In regard to courts restrainedradical, alternative dispute resolution is all the rage in Illinois to relieve crowded court dockets. Mediation with a private mediator is required in all cases involving kids.

    As to police, private security firms are booming because the police in most communities are unable to protect the citizenry.

    In regard to the military, that is one of the few areas in which a government monopoly is warranted, since Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private citizens are just not of much utility in modern warfare.

  • What wrong with private military companies like Blackwater?

  • Funny video. Difference between public and private schools is not the cost but the care of the parent(s) for their children. If you agree to pay for your child’s education in either time, homeschooling, or in tuition, private school, you are vested in the outcome. You care enough to get involved in more then just going to a sporting event that your child is taking part in.

    It is not about the money, it is about the family. So vouchers for terrible parents is a horrendous idea. Too bad you are so far off the mark, but keep the comedy coming. It is fun to watch general lies told by nice pretty people.

    How about next film you use the Joker from Batman? That would be more entertaining.

  • Too bad you are so far off the mark, but keep the comedy coming.

    What is truly funny Steve Zero are people who try to make excuses for truly rotten schools by blaming bad parents. Bad parents didn’t simply magically appear circa 1975, but somehow schools before that time often produced successful students who were cursed with bad parents. Family breakdown is a problem in our society but abysmal public schools do not help the situation.

  • By Steve’s reasoning people who can’t afford private schools or to have a parent staying home to teach are by default bad parents. Their children should be foresaken to the ghetto of piss-poor public schools. Not only is that wrong-headed, it’s sickening.

  • Steve,

    That’s a nice bit of water carrying for the Ruling Class – don’t pay any attention to non-government results! They don’t matter! Just keep shoveling money at the government, we promise we’ll get it right…and when is that new security gate going to be installed around the homes of the elite to keep the public school graduates out?

    The problem with public schools lies in the fact of their “free and compulsory” nature. Every parent should pay at least a nominal, direct fee for the education of their children – and should be allowed to send their child to whatever school they choose and will accept the child. No child should be compelled to attend school after about the 5th grade.

    Do that, and all education problems will resolve themselves.

  • Having dealt some with students in the public school, all the factors are relevant. Poor environments, over-worked or lazy parents, disinterested teachers, etc. There isn’t one magical factor that can turn around public schools; a foundational and gradual change is necessary.

  • I see it in terms of THEM feverishly foisting on US a command economy/central planning bureaucracy to allocate (ration) limited resources among relatively unlimited needs/desires.

  • Pingback: Econ 101 » Blogs For Victory
  • so vouchers for terrible parents are a horrendous idea

    SteveO, why not answer three questions to clarify your own thinking and our understanding of it.

    1. What proportion of parents are ‘terrible’?

    2. Why should the selections of non-terrible parents be constrained by the incapacities of the terrible parents?

    3. What criteria do you fancy ‘terrible’ parents will use to select schools?

    4. If the ‘terrible’ parents select for convenience of commuting, how does that leave the aggregate set of selections worse than it is now, given that people are compelled to make use of geographically proximate schools?

  • I suppose that is why you and your Tea Party demanded government keep its hands off people’s Medicare.

    Other than positing the Democratic Congressional caucus’ 1,000+ page bill will generate a state of the world worse than the one we now have, just who among those you usually tangle with says Medicare is untouchable?

  • Dodd, Frank, Obama, Pelosi, Reid must – commoin good – control the economy and install command economy/central planning because the majority are racists, christianist terrorists, or NASCAR-loving retards who are too stupid to know what’s good for them.

    Plus, once the people are reduced to an equal level of dependency and desperation (Obamacare prophecy: before 90% were well-insured; after 100% harmed by government-controlled health) and they are disarmed, it will be easier to control them.

  • T. Shaw,

    That sounds kooky. I will give you this, though. I have stopped believing Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have been transparent about their aims and motives. Neither is an obscure figure in the economics profession. ‘Tis disconcerting.

  • I’m a kook. Sadly, I’m not alone.

    Krugman . . . I wonder what he calls the planet on which he lives.

  • Another attempt to help Steve0 think clearly.

    “If you agree to pay for your child’s education in either time, homeschooling, or in tuition, private school, you are vested in the outcome.”

    Many low-income (terrible?) parents cannot afford a significant financial investment in their child’s education.

    However, if they could CHOOSE the school where their child attends, then they could make an investment in that particular school that is much more valuable than money.

    They would have the opportunity to invest THEIR CHILD in that school. They will work hard to make sure that investment is successful.