At Harvard Energy and Environmentalism are One and the Same

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 26th, 2011

Week in Review

Harvard is working on our energy solution.  And it coincidentally happens to mesh with their environmental agenda (see Harvard Study Calls for Radical Increase in U.S. Energy Innovation Spending by William Pentland posted 11/23/2011 on Forbes).

The U.S. government could save the economy hundreds of billions of dollars annually by 2050 by expanding support for energy innovation, according to the results of a three-year research project at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Okay, two problems can be noted from the get-go.  The report is from Harvard.  And it’s by the Kennedy School at Harvard.  Two names that don’t jump to anyone’s mind when you think of profits and energy.  No.  What you typically think of when you hear these names are liberal causes.  At our expense.  Increasing the cost of daily life with their regulatory policies.  To drag Americans kicking and screaming into a world we don’t want.  But one that they believe is in our best interests.

The U.S. federal government should implement policies that create market incentives to develop and deploy new energy technologies, including policies that have the effect of creating a substantial price on carbon emissions, and sector-specific policies to overcome other market failures.

There are no such things as market failures.  They like to use that term when their market tinkering doesn’t produce the results they want.  That is, when their policies have failed.  But they can never blame their policies.  So they blame the market.  Call their failures market failures.  So they can create more policy to correct their past failures.

The price on carbon emissions would the biggest tax ever levied on the American people.  And that’s why they want to levy it.  For the money the government can spend on other liberal folly.  And the control they could use to strangle the American economy when it fails to do as they wish.

The U.S. government should take a strategic approach to working with the private sector on energy innovation, expanding incentives for private sector energy innovation, and focusing on the particular strategies likely to work best in each case.

In other words, they think the government should pick the winners and losers in energy.  Just like they did with Solyndra.  Where the government can reward political campaign donors with lucrative government loans.  Just like they did with Solyndra.

The U.S. government should undertake a strategic approach to energy RD&D cooperation with other countries, to leverage the knowledge, resources, and opportunities available around the world, incorporating both top-down strategic priorities and investment in new ideas arising from the bottom-up.

Sort of a Kyoto writ large.  Only with more bite.  As the global warming agenda passed at Kyoto had very little bite.

Anytime you see an energy report coming out of Harvard consider the source.  And their ulterior motive.  One world, liberal government.  With them at the top.  And the rest of us doing what they tell us to do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #86: “Smug, all-knowing condescension camouflages a vacuous philosophical basis.” –Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 6th, 2011

Ronald Reagan had a B.A. in Economics, Served in the Army, was President of SAG and Served Two Terms as California Governor

The Left hated Ronald Reagan.  They belittled him.  Made snarky comments like ‘he’s just an actor’.  That he wasn’t smart enough to be president.  And not qualified.  For all he could do was give a good speech.  Because he was just an actor.

Yes, he was an actor.  But he did go to college.  Had a B.A. in economics and sociology.   Enlisted in the Army and served in the cavalry.  Earned a commission in the Reserve Officer Corps just before World War II.  Served stateside during World War II making training films for the army.  Severely nearsighted, the Army classified him for limited service only.  Which meant he couldn’t serve overseas.  He served 8 years as president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG).  During the height of the Red Scare.  Which cemented his anti-communist credentials.  (Yes, there were communists in Hollywood.  As well as in the FDR administration.)  Hosted General Electric Theater for 8 years.  He visited General Electric R&D facilities.  About 135.  Saw job creation up close during his tenure with GE.  Helping to hone his economic views.  He served two terms as California governor.  During the peak of the Vietnam anti-war protests.  When he gave his concession speak at the 1976 Republican Convention, delegates mumbled that they had nominated the wrong man (Gerald Ford).  At the age of 69, Reagan became president.  Despite snarky comments like ‘he’s too old to be president’.

So Reagan had the education.  And a long list of experience on his resume.  Experience that took him through some of the most defining moments of American history.  And spent 8 years as governor of the most populous state.  Eight years of solid executive experience.  So he was every bit qualified for office.  The people who attacked him just didn’t like his ideology.  And the fact that he was very good in elected office.  So they used smug, all-knowing condescension to belittle him.  And it worked well.  For they did not like Reagan on American college campuses.  Where kids parroted what they heard in the media.  And on their favorite shows.  But didn’t have an original thought in their heads.

Incidentally, Barack Obama got a B.S. in political science from Columbia.  And a law degree from Harvard.  He served 3 terms as Illinois state senator.  And 2/3 of a term as U.S. senator.  He had no military experience.  No executive experience.  And his only other experience was confined to academe.  Or law.  Yet those who said Ronald Reagan was not qualified to be president had no problem with Barack Obama.  Go figure.

George W. Bush had an M.B.A. from Harvard, served in the Texas ANG, ran businesses and served two terms as Texas Governor

But compared to George W. Bush, they held Ronald Reagan in great esteem.  For the Left just flat out called Bush an idiot.  And simply too stupid to be president.

For being stupid Bush was pretty well educated.  He had an B.A. in history from Yale.  A good thing for presidents to know.  History.  And he earned an M.B.A. from Harvard.  The only president to have one.  He served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam.  He then worked in the oil industry.  Started up some oil exploration companies.  Bush Exploration, for one.   This merged with Spectrum 7.  Where he served as chairman.  The oil glut of the Eighties hit that company hard.  It later merged with Harken Energy.   Where he served on the board.  He helped Dad run for president.  Bought a piece of the Texas Rangers after that.  Spent five years there as the managing general partner.  Built the value of the team so well that when he sold his chunk he got uber rich.  Then he served about one and a half terms as Texas governor.

This is the man the Left said was too stupid to be president.  This man who had an M.B.A. from Harvard.  One of the most pretentious Ivy League schools.  A man who worked in the energy industry.  And understood it.  Who knew how to run a business.  And did.  Even ran a Major League baseball team.  And had some 6 years of solid executive experience as the governor of the second most populous state.  So he, too, was every bit qualified for office.  The people who attacked him just didn’t like his ideology.  And the fact that he was very good in elected office.  And in the business world.  So they used smug, all-knowing condescension to belittle him.  And it worked well.  For they did not like Bush on American college campuses either.  Where kids parroted what they heard in the media.  And on their favorite shows.  But they didn’t have an original thought in their heads.  Some things just never change.

Incidentally, Barack Obama got a B.S. in political science from Columbia.  And a law degree from Harvard.  He served 3 terms as Illinois state senator.  And 2/3 of a term as U.S. senator.  He had no military experience.  No executive experience.  And his only other experience was confined to academe.  Or law.  Yet those who said George W. Bush was not qualified to be president had no problem with Barack Obama.  Go figure.

They make their Snarky Little Comments about the Greed of Corporations while Greedily Demanding more Government Benefits

And speaking of these college geniuses, you can hear a lot of them doing what they do best.  Whining.  They’re protesting up on Wall Street.  Cause they hate capitalism.  Because their tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt hasn’t given them a high paying job.  And because they hate capitalism you know they don’t have a business degree.  Or anything that can be used in the business world.  Further, if they don’t want to be a toady to corporate America, they probably don’t have a degree that would help them gain employment with a corporation.  Like a chemistry degree.  An engineering degree.  Or a physics degree.  No.  These would have been too corporate.  And possibly too harmful to the environment.  Not to mention hard.

These protestors are living the protest life of the Sixties.  Complete with free love.  And drugs.  Which, incidentally, is why they went to college.  Not to sit in some boring-ass lectures and take exams with math on them.  And that’s why they’re so angry.  Because during difficult economic times corporations don’t have the money to waste on wasteful degrees like women’s studies.  Art.  Poetry.  French.  Anthropology.  Or some other liberal art or social science.  No.  The only high paying job opportunities for these are in academe.  Or in government.  When they are flush with taxpayer cash.  Thanks to corporations providing real jobs for taxpayers.  But when there are no real jobs, there are no tax dollars to pay for these phony baloney jobs.

So they make their snarky little comments about the greed of corporations.  About the greed of the bankers.  About the greed of Republicans.  All the while they are greedily demanding more government benefits.  Paid for by the very people they are protesting against.  While enjoying the very things these greedy corporations have given them.  They are using wireless technology to live-tweet their latest list of whines.  All technology created by the very corporations they hate.  Produced under the system they want to purge from America.  Capitalism.

If it wasn’t for Capitalism they’d be Working in a Field Somewhere for Subsistence Right Now

Look at Apple.  And Steve Jobs.  Look at what he created.  And ask yourself this.  Why Steve Jobs and not someone in Cuba?  Someone in North Korea?  Someone in the former Soviet Union?  These are three hardcore socialist regimes these protestors admire.  Who have egalitarian systems of government.  Where there is fair-shared misery.  No one lives better than anyone else.  Except those within the party apparatchik.  Which these protestors naturally assume they would be part of.  Once America became fair.  And they stripped the rich of all their wealth.  For the benefit of mankind.  And by mankind I mean these protestors.

Cuba even has a national health care system that is so impressive that Michael Moore made a movie about it.  While condemning the inferior American system.  Cuba is great.  They care about their people there.  So much so that they don’t let them leave.  For fear of the substandard love they’ll get in another nation.  Still some of these fools try to escape their utopia.  By crossing shark-infested water in some of the most unseaworthy boats.  To get to Florida.  In the USA.  To the country that the Wall Street protestors say is worse than Cuba.  If only they had iPhones in Cuba they could get their live-tweet feed from Wall Street so they would know that things are better there.  So they can stay there.  In their utopia.

Of course, it’s not better there.  And Steve Jobs wasn’t a Cuban.  He wasn’t a North Korean.  He wasn’t a Soviet.  He was an American.  An entrepreneur.  And a capitalist.  Who made Apple a rich corporation by giving us things we can’t live without.  Things we never asked for.  Things we didn’t even know about.  Until after he created them.  And he told us how cool they were.

They can make snarky, all-knowing, condescending remarks all day long about corporate greed and the evil of capitalism.  But if it wasn’t for capitalism they’d be working in a field somewhere for subsistence right now.  And the fact that they don’t know this shows how empty headed and brainwashed they are.  And what a piss-poor job our public schools and colleges are doing.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The UK and Canada get Spending under Control while the USA is in Denial

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 1st, 2011

Teacher Pensions too Generous in the UK, Too

It’s not just in Madison, Wisconsin.  Or Detroit, Michigan.  Those public sector benefits busting budgets in city and states throughout the United States are causing fiscal pain in the UK, too (see Heads vote for industrial action ballot over pensions by Angela Harrison posted 5/1/2011 on the BBC).

A review led by Lord Hutton called for final salary schemes to be replaced by those based on the average salary in a career and said public sector workers should retire later, in line with a rising state pension age…

Schools minister Nick Gibb recently told a teachers’ conference that public service pensions should remain a gold standard – but that rising costs and greater life expectancy meant reform was needed.

These generous public sector benefits are no longer sustainable.  There’s a cost to this kind of spending.  High taxes.  Which don’t create jobs.  Or economic activity.  Which is the source of all taxes.  So raising taxes to pay for this generous spending ends up reducing economic activity, job creation and total tax receipts.  Which creates unemployment.  And deficits. 

So conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to reverse this trend.  He and his coalition government with the Liberal Democrats are implementing austerity programs throughout the UK.  A la Margaret Thatcher.  The great conservative from the Eighties.  Who helped to put the ‘great’ back into Great Britain.  By cutting taxes.  And spending.

The Canadian Government becoming more American

The trend is the same in Canada.  Where Stephen Harper may just win an outright parliamentary majority for his conservative party.  Courtesy of the New Democratic Party (NDP) no less (See Stephen Harper and that elusive majority by The Economist posted 4/28/2011 on The Economist).

THE hitherto sleepy campaign for Canada’s general election on May 2nd was jolted awake over the Easter weekend by a surprising surge by the New Democratic Party (NDP), a leftish amalgam of trade unionists and farmers…

So is Canada about to go socialist? Although the Canadian dollar wobbled this week, the answer is almost certainly not.   Indeed, by splitting the centre-left vote more evenly, the NDP’s rise—if sustained—may provide Stephen Harper, the Conservative leader, with the parliamentary majority that has eluded him ever since he became prime minister in 2006. In the ensuing years Canadian politics has become an unusually shrill, partisan and intransigent affair.  Frequent elections—this is the fourth since 2004—have seen falling voter turnout, while polls show that public trust in politicians is also declining.

This cynicism seems to have helped Jack Layton, the NDP leader. He is seen as the cheerful underdog, who, despite suffering from prostate cancer and hip problems that require he walk with a cane, appears relaxed and smiling. Although based in Toronto, he grew up near Montreal. In colloquial French he claims that “winds of change” are sweeping his native province. His message of higher corporate taxes, more social spending, green measures, and an early withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan goes down well in Quebec, a traditionally pacifist, big-government kind of place. Mr Layton seems to be successfully wooing disillusioned supporters of the separatist Bloc Québécois.

Once upon a time Canada was New France.  But the British changed French Canada to British Canada after winning the Seven Years’ War.  But the French never stopped being French in Quebec.  Even put ‘je me souviens‘ on their license plates.  So they would never forget their French past.  French tradition.  Or French culture.  The Bloc Québécois even wanted to get Quebec out of Canada.  It turned out that most Quebecers didn’t.  So the Bloc has been marginalized of late.  But if you ever traveled to the province of Quebec it is clear that they like their government big.  Which is why the NDP appeals to Quebecers.

The NDP is also profiting from the travails of Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal leader, who entered politics in 2006 after spending most of the three previous decades working as a journalist and academic in Britain and the United States. Although his campaign appearances have become more assured, he has failed to shake off the gibes of Conservative attack ads that he is an elitist from Harvard who is “just visiting” Canada in the hope of gaining power.

An elitist from Harvard?  Interesting.  For Ivy League elitists have ruled the US since George H. W. Bush.  The latest being perhaps the most elitist.  President Obama.  Who many criticize as being professorial.  And of talking down to the American people.  Which is what they teach you to do at Harvard.  And the other Ivy League schools.

The biggest problem for the Liberals, a centrist, big-tent party, is that Canadian politics has become less European and consensual and more American and ideological. Mr Harper has been the main cause and beneficiary of that process. After five years, he has earned Canadians’ respect if not their love. He is an astute political tactician: he is the longest-serving prime minister of a minority government in Canadian history. But he comes over as a cold control-freak. A headline on the website of the Globe and Mail, a Liberal-leaning paper, summed up popular sentiment when it described the prime minister as “nasty, brutish—and competent”.

Mr Harper’s campaign pitch is that he needs a parliamentary majority in order to sustain the country’s recovery from recession. His message of low taxes, small government and tougher treatment of criminals has won him support everywhere except Quebec…

Now this is very interesting indeed.  Becoming more American?  All the while the Americans, under the rule of those Ivy League elitists, are trying to become more European.  Where the big social democracies wield great power.  And budgets.  Meanwhile, America’s friends to the north are going low taxes and small government.  And however cruel and unfeeling that may be, the Canadian liberals even admit Harper’s government is competent.  Which is another way of saying responsible.  Or grown up.

Medicare Reform has had Bipartisan Support for Decades

The UK and Canada have little choice.  They have to be ‘grown up’ in light of their financial woes.  And it’s no different in the U.S.  Their financial woes just have taken a little longer to hit them.  Because they are the world’s largest economy.  But even size doesn’t matter in the long run.  And some have seen the writing on the wall since the early eighties (see GOP plan to change Medicare is rooted in bipartisan history by Amy Goldstein posted 5/1/2011 on The Washington Post).

There is a broad consensus that Medicare in its current form will be overwhelmed by the financial pressures of the aging baby-boom generation, longer life spans and sophisticated medical treatments. Various estimates say the fund that pays Medicare hospital bills will run short in a decade or two; the program’s trustees are to release new predictions in a few weeks.

The thinking about Medicare and market forces has long bipartisan roots. In the early 1980s, then-congressmen Richard A. Gephardt, a Missouri Democrat, and David Stockman, a Michigan Republican, proposed vouchers to help people on Medicare buy private health plans.

The term “premium support” was coined in 1995 by two respected health policy experts, neither a conservative: Henry Aaron, a Brookings economist, and Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. “The idea of vouchers was abroad in the land,” Aaron recalled. “We thought there was sort of a free-market-will-cure-all mentality.”

Their idea was to marry market competition in Medicare with regulation to ensure proper benefits and enough financial help. The Medicare commission’s work was an heir to their ideas. Proponents point out that the popular Medicare drug benefit created in 2003 relies on a such a model.

So America has had its grownups looking at the inevitable since the eighties.  Medicare will break unless it’s changed.  For three decades the grownups have been discussing this.  But the Ivy League elitists say ‘pish tosh’ and laugh with all knowing condescension.  For they don’t live in reality.  Their world is an insulated one where the privileged elite don’t work.  But spend their days pontificating.  Safe and snug in their universities.  Or in the federal government.  Where the consequences of their policies will never touch them.

Myopic Ivy League Pretentious Condescension

So we have unsustainable spending in the UK, Canada and the USA.  Concerned citizens in these countries voted in conservative governments.  Rising costs and greater life expectancy have made the state pensions and health plans in days of old no longer doable.  No, austerity is now the name of the game.  People are getting it.  Despite the lies of the politicians.  For the people live in the real world.  The world of paychecks.  And taxes.  Unlike the elite who like to pontificate from their lives of plenty and extreme comfort.  But that doesn’t stop the lying.  The myopic Ivy League worldview.  Or the pretentious condescension.  Case in point is the wonkish Paul Krugman. 

He posted a chart showing changes in revenue and spending from 2007 to 2010.   Spending is up.  And revenues are down.  Ergo, it’s not a spending problem.  We’re simply not taxing enough (see Origins of the Deficit by Paul Krugman posted 5/1/2011 on The New York Times).

Even on this crude calculation, it’s obvious that the slump is responsible for the great bulk of the rise in the deficit. Anyone who says otherwise is either remarkably ill-informed or trying to deceive you.

Budgets in cities and states across the country are facing their biggest deficits in history.  Why?  Recession.  Tax revenues plummet in times of recession.  Housing values tumble during times of recession (and with them property taxes).  People lose jobs during times of recession (the unemployed don’t pay income taxes or payroll taxes).  And it’s the same at the federal level.  Especially during the greatest recession since the Great Depression.  Sustained government spending during times of recession empties treasuries.  And creates deficits.

Federal spending has averaged approximately 20% of GDP since 1960.  It jumped to approximately 25% during the Obama administration.  That’s a huge spending increase.  No matter how you look at it.  And this is why the deficit is soaring into the trillion dollar territory for the first time.  Record spending during the worst recession since the Great Depression. 

“Anyone who says otherwise is either remarkably ill-informed or trying to deceive you.”

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,