The chart below shows that the poor in the United States would rank as the rich in other countries. It also shows that the difference between rich and poor is much starker outside our borders.
New York Times: The Haves and the Have-Nots
This begs the question about people who speak of social justice and income redistribution: Does this chart mean that the USA (including the poor) should be sending money to those who did not have the good fortune to be born in the United States?
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Economics on January 31st, 2011
My wife and I sat down to watch the Social Network this weekend. She fell asleep before I could hit the play button, but I sat through the whole thing. It was a horrible story.
As a story, it was horrible because 1) We already know the ending 2) You love no one in this movie 3) You hate no one in this movie
What I did like (and I think why Americans have flocked to see it) is the concept which is the American dream realized. A young guy with no connections or family ties takes a good idea and makes billions. America has many of them: Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and now Mark Zuckerberg. There are many more that we have never heard of.
Americans love that dream even though we realize it will probably never happen to us. It is why the class envy card fails for Democrats. Their only supporters are those who have already made millions and those who have given up.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Free Markets on January 31st, 2011
Central planners believe in themselves and not the free market. It would be nice if they learned from their mistakes.
France has a big-time subsidy for solar panels. It has gotten so bad there that farmers are getting rid of their cows to make room for more solar panels. And the price of electricity…from solar panels it is outrageous
France’s energy regulator estimates EDF will pay an average of 546 euros a megawatt-hour for solar power in 2011. That’s almost 10 times estimated spot market power prices of 55 euros, and the highest among renewable energy sources…read about solar power in France
Have we learned anything from this mistake? Nope. President Obama is still spending our money on solar energy and green jobs.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Alternative Energy on January 30th, 2011
Government regulation is often framed as protection for the consumers at the expense of big companies. That’s what the regulators want you to think. What is usually missed is that regulation is a way to protect big companies from competition created by smaller companies.
In 2003, Congress enacted the “Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act,” which granted the FTC a regulatory franchise over sellers of contact lenses. Additionally, in 2005 Congress decreed that decorative (non-medical) contact lenses were “restricted medical devices” subject to the regulatory monopoly of the Food and Drug Administration. Because of these two decrees, anyone selling decorative contact lenses must, under FTC rules, obtain and verify prescriptions from a government-licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist for every consumer who wishes to purchase such “restricted medical devices.”
The FTC is forcing a woman to sell her car to pay the fines for daring to sell decorative contact lenses for theatrical and other uses like Halloween costumes. No one was hurt. There was no fraud. She just had the nerve to supply a product to an adult without the proper government meddling.
The federal government is too big and out of control.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Free Markets on January 29th, 2011
Where does evil come from? If you remove God and the devil from the equation, it seems like a simple answer. Evil comes from men. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. In my world view, those who kill innocent people in the pursuit of power are evil. It seems pretty obvious and conservatives are probably wondering why I would spend the time to write down such a trivial conclusion.
Evil is not viewed in the same way by all. I believe people with a liberal worldview have a much different concept of evil. Liberals believe people are blank slates that are easily manipulated. That is why they are so gung-ho on government regulation and central control. They believe the wise liberals can build a better world by being a better sheep herder. It also explains why Barack Obama thinks he can negotiate with the likes of Iran. To liberals, rogue nations are challenges that require smart diplomacy as if crazy mullahs are waiting to be herded into the coral of civilized nations.
It’s not that liberals don’t believe evil exists. They do. Liberals have a different vision of evil. They transfer evil from people to their weapons. Guns are evil. Nuclear weapons are evil. Liberals think that if we remove the evil weapons from some, the rest will follow (like sheep). Gun laws remove guns from law abiding citizens. To a liberal, everyone is dangerous with a gun in their hand because the person isn’t the problem. The gun is. They have the same view about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are evil in all nations. Liberals call for the United States to unilaterally disarm as an example to the world and they see no difference between a nuclear Israel and a nuclear Iran.
A modern liberal view of evil is so out-of-whack with the real world that it is scary. Do criminals change their evil ways because the victims became easier targets? Because of their concept of evil, far-left liberals would leave us defenseless in a world were evil preys on the weak.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Crazy Progressives on January 28th, 2011
Infrastructure. Education. Green Jobs. Investment. Bi-partisanship. Debt reduction. Yea…yea..yea. Every president reads from the same playbook. Here are three timely issues we didn’t hear about in the State of the Union address.
How is the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana doing less than a year after what was suppose to be the worst disaster ever?
What is going on in our neighbor Mexico? Murder and assassinations are frequent. What can we do to help? What can we do to prevent the violence from spilling over into our country.
The young are protesting against a dictators in Tunisia and Egypt. They are not driven by religion. What is driving them? Should we help?
Tunisia, Egypt and other spots in North Africa are erupting in violence. Why? Here is one interpretation from Morrocan-born author and political commentator Laila Lalami.
I think it’s just a thirst for freedom – that’s the one way that you can summarize it. These are young people who are sick and tired of the life that they are forced to lead. They’ve done everything that was asked of them – they got their education. They can’t find jobs, and when they do find jobs, they constantly have to dole out bribes just to lead a normal life. They are sick of it. They want lives filled with dignity. The [government] opposition hasn’t delivered. And when [the youth] look to the West for help, they see foreign powers that are perfectly content to support these dictators while at the same time delivering lectures on democracy. So, it’s impossible; you feel like you’re on your own. This is the message that Tunisia has delivered to the world: if you want change, you have to get it on your own.
After the State of The Union (SOTU) Address, the President usually gets a bump in the ratings. Not this time. Rasmussen three day rolling average just went down for the President.
Barack Obama may have given your typical SOTU loaded with promises and lofty goals, but these are not typical times. The American people want fiscal sanity. Many were hoping that the recent election had moderated the President. The SOTU showed that the illusive change we were hoping is not going to come from the President.
According to our liberal opponents, tax breaks cost the government money. Therefore, everyone not paying the top tax rate is getting a hand-out from the government. We are all welfare recipients.
My number one expense each year is taxes. It impossible to know, but it seems the government takes more from me than I receive. To suggest that I am a recipient of welfare is insulting. The idea that money not collected is a hand-out is insulting. To suggest that 95% of Americans are receiving welfare is insulting…and then to demonize the 5% that aren’t receiving welfare seems counter productive.
The whole line of reasoning is insulting. So…are tax breaks a cost to government?
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Taxes on January 27th, 2011
Paul Ryan gave an excellent response to the President’s State of the Union speech. My favorite line was:
This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock which lulls able bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.
Watch the whole response:
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in Congress,video on January 26th, 2011
If you have powerful friends in Washington, then you too can get a waiver from ObamaCare. Being in a union definitely helps. The count is now up to 729 plus 4 states.
President Obama gave a typical State of The Union Address. It was a laundry list of things he would like that are never going to happen. All recent presidents have done it and it’s boring, but this president has an extra burden.
No one who hass been paying attention believes him.
He said he wants to tackle the deficit but we know he will be dragged kicking and screaming toward cost cutting. He speaks of bi-partisanship but it was only a few months ago that he called Republicans the enemy and compared them to hostage takers. President Obama will continue along his current path because he believes in government not the free market. A letter to PowerLineBlog explains the duplicity.
(President Obama) said:
Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.
What is the connection between the first sentence and the second that Obama posits with the word “so”? I don’t see it. The first sentence speaks of markets. It is the language of capitalism. The second speaks of an outcome independent of market forces. It is the language of state planning, the true language of this presidency, I fear.
President of the free markets. He invokes concepts form the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He speaks of bipartisanship and moderation. He has said all this before, but now we have his record and the American people no longer believe him.
Share on Facebook
