Japan clings to the same Keynesian Policies that have Failed for over 20 Years

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 30th, 2012

Week in Review

The fiscal cliff negotiations are all about deficit reduction.  The Right wants to do it with spending cuts.   The Left wants to do it with new taxes.  So they can spend more.  This is why they can’t reach an agreement.  The Right wants to reduce the deficit.  While the Left wants to increase spending.  For benefits.  For education.  For investments in Green Energy.  For infrastructure.  For economic stimulus.  Which will only increase the deficit.  So the Democrats are not exactly sincere when they talk about deficit reduction.  Which is why they can’t make a deal with the Republicans.  Who are serious when they talk about deficit reduction.

Another reason why the Democrats want to spend so much money is that they are Keynesians.  Who believe the government can bring an economy out of a recession with stimulus spending.  Despite that failing every time we’ve tried it.  In the United States in the Seventies.  Again during the Obama administration.  In the Eurozone.  In Asia.  Especially in Japan.  Where they’ve been trying to stimulate themselves out of a recession since their Lost Decade.  The Nineties (see Japan’s New Stimulus: The Race With China To The Bottom by Gordon G. Chang posted 12/30/2012 on Forbes).

The universal consensus is that the fall in manufacturing bolsters the case for Shinzo Abe’s plans to stimulate the economy.  The new prime minister is pursuing a broad-based program of shocking Japan out of its fourth contraction since the turn of the century.

First, Abe is going to prime the pump in a big way…

Second, Abe is going to push the yen down to help struggling exporters…

Third, the just-installed prime minister is leaning on the Bank of Japan to open up the taps…

Markets may love Abe’s stimulus solutions, but they are at best short-term fixes.  Tokyo, after all, has tried them all before with generally unsatisfactory results.  What Japan needs is not another paved-over riverbed—past spending programs have resulted in useless infrastructure—but structural reform to increase the country’s competitiveness.

Tokyo’s political elite, unfortunately, has got hooked on the false notion that governments can create enduring prosperity.  Two decades of recession and recession-like stagnation in Japan are proof that repeated government intervention in the economy does not in fact work.

If you keep trying to stimulate yourself out of a recession with Keynesian policies for over twenty years perhaps it’s time to give up on those failed policies.  Of course to do that may require some spending and tax cuts.  And you know how well that goes over with big government types.  It’s why the Americans can’t make a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.  And why the Japanese are going to try more of the same failed policies of the past.

Another impetus for these bad policies decisions is what’s happening in China.  Whose economy is much younger than Japan’s economy.  So they don’t have years of failed Keynesian policies digging their economy into a deep hole.  And because of that they’re going to go big.  Their stimulus is going to include the building of cities.  And that’s what the Japanese see.  That, and the (one time) economic explosion of their export economy.  Something they once had in Japan.  And would love to have again.  So they are going to follow China’s lead.  Even though their economic expansion is pretty much at its end.

Although there has been a “recovery” beginning in October, it looks like the upturn is already running out of steam.  China’s technocrats know they’re in trouble: they are apparently planning to increase the central government’s planned deficit for 2013 by 41% to 1.2 trillion yuan ($192 billion).  At present, it is now slated to be only 850 billion yuan.  Much of the shortfall is going toward an urbanization push next year.  Last year, Beijing announced its intention to build 20 new cities a year in each of the following 20 years.

The two biggest economies in Asia are ailing at the same time, and both Beijing and Tokyo have decided that government intervention is the shortest path to long-term growth.  Neither government’s program, however, looks viable.  Unfortunately, both China and Japan are going down the wrong road at the same time.

This could help the U.S. economy.  If they enacted spending cuts for their deficit reduction they could cut tax rates to spur the economy along.  And make the U.S. competitiveness soar while Japan and China dig themselves into deeper holes.  But the Americans, being the foolish Keynesians they are, are going to follow the Japanese and the Chinese into economic stagnation.  And with President Obama’s reelection they will stay Keynesian.  Drive over the fiscal cliff.  And compete with the Japanese to see who can have more lost decades

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Political Right, Left and Center

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 22nd, 2012

(Originally published December 8th, 2011)

The French Left wanted Radical Change and Launched the French Revolution

The terms Right, Left and Center go back to the French Revolution.  To the National Assembly.  Where people sat according to their political preferences.  Those who wanted to kill the king, the queen, the nobility, the clergy and pretty much anyone rich sat to the left of the president.  Those who wanted to maintain the monarchy and the established institutions sat to the president’s right.  Those who fell between these views sat in the center.

Why did the French Revolution erupt?  The people were starving.  Taxes were high.  And the government was trying to raise taxes again.  Because the government was drowning in debt.  From decades of war with their archenemy.  Great Britain.  And their financing of the American Revolution.  Where the British Americans were rebelling against the French’s archenemy.  Great Britain.

So France was a tinderbox.  To make matters worse for the monarchy was all that liberty talk of the Americans.  It was like a disease.  And it infected the French.  Who looked at the wealthy few.  The king.  The queen.  The nobility.  The clergy.  And then listened to their empty tummies rumbling.  The French Left wanted radical change.  And revolution.  The French Right said whoa now, let’s not act hasty here.  Yes we have some problems but our glorious French institutions have been around for centuries.  It’s in large part to them that France is great.

The Revolution to Topple a King ended with the Coronation of an Emperor – Napoleon

Well despite France’s great and glorious past the radicals got their way.  And blood ran in the streets of Paris.  Starting with the Storming of the Bastille.  The great medieval fortress housing prisoners of the realm.  The revolutionaries threw open the gates.  And freed all seven prisoners.  Being more a symbolic act than one of substance.  But this led eventually to a number of legislative assemblies.  A lot of blood.  Carnage.  And the beheading of King Louis XVI.  And his queen.  Marie Antoinette.  Eventually the seats on the right side of the National Assembly emptied.  As everyone moved to the president’s left.  Lest they be killed, too.

The revolutionaries aimed their wrath at anyone who was not supportive of the Revolution.  And even those whose support was only lukewarm.  They killed these enemies of the Revolution.  Or any other enemies that they conveniently identified as enemies of the Revolution.  Leaders rose.  And leaders fell.  Jean-Paul Marat.  Georges-Jacques Danton.  And Maximillien Robespierre.  All three were killed.  Charlotte Corday, a supporter of the Right, stabbed Marat in his bath tub.  Danton and Robespierre were guillotined.  Leaders of violence.  Victims of violence.  These members of the French Left.  Who killed and terrorized the people unlike the king they killed.  King Louis XVI.  Or the queen they killed.  Marie Antoinette.

Ultimately the French Revolution gave the world Napoleon.  And world war.  And the Revolution to topple a king ended with the coronation of an emperor.  For this opportunist ultimately had the biggest army.  Napoleon could consolidate his power.  Unlike Marat.  Danton.  Or Robespierre.  But Napoleon could.  And did.  Then he set out to create an empire.  Much like the kings that came before him did.

Those on the Right are Distrustful of those on the Left when they Talk about Egalitarianism and Fairness

Today the meaning of Left, Right and Center vary.  But, in general, those on the Right prefer the way things are.  Proven by time to work.  And those on the Left are never happy with how things are and want to change them to some new theoretical ideal that time hasn’t proven as a viable workable system.  Such as socialism.  And communism.  Generally referred to as ‘leftist’ systems.  And both are systems that have never worked.

Fascist Italy, Communist Russia and Nazi Germany were all new experimental systems to right all the wrongs of past governments.  And all three governments made their citizens’ lives worse with harsh police states.  With the state summarily executing enemies of the state.  Much like Marat, Danton and Robespierre did in France.  Many refer to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as right-wing states.  But both were fascist states.  Which was nothing more than a national socialism.  Which was a combination of socialism.  And nationalism.  These were people who wanted radical change.  Control over the masses.  And empire.  If these governments sat in the French National Legislation they all would have taken seats to the left of the president.

Leftists hate the rich and successful.  And want to confiscate their wealth for themselves.  Instead of trying to achieve wealth on their own merit.  Those on the Right are distrustful of those on the Left when they talk about egalitarianism and fairness.  Because they know what that means.  They are going to take their wealth via the power of government.  By a progressive tax system.  Inheritance tax.  Capital gains tax.  Surtaxes to punish success.  Regulatory laws and fees that increase the cost of doing business.  (As well as increases the prices of goods and services.)  Etc.

The Left champions the poor and downtrodden as they ascend to power.  But rarely have they helped the poor and downtrodden.  Only a select few in the party upper echelons ever live a better life.   For example, the Democrat Party launched a war on poverty in the Sixties and yet there is still poverty.  Despite a myriad of government programs that has exploded the size of government.  All headed by rich bureaucrats living better lives.  While the poor and downtrodden are still wallowing in poverty.  And we know this because the Left is constantly telling us this.  In their never ending quest to expand the size of government.

The center is somewhere between the Left and the Right.  It’s not really a group with core political beliefs.  But more of a group that that likes a little from column ‘A’.  And a little from column ‘B’.

Politics is a Procession – We tend to Start on the Left, Work our Way through the Center and End on the Right

Perhaps another way to look at this is those on the right being parents in a family.  Children of these parents who are now raising their own families are in the center.  And the young children who are still in college are on the left.

The young know little and have even less responsibility.  They like to stay out late, party, do drugs and have consequence-free sex.  They don’t like anything that restricts their good times.  Hence they are always hostile to authority.  Church.  Or state.  And their vote tends to lean towards anarchy.  Where anything goes.

The children starting their own families are slowly giving up the ways of their youth.  They are becoming established in their careers.  Raising children.  Which leaves little time for fun.  But they are hesitant to admit that they have become their parents.  So they hang on to some of their idealistic ways of their youth.  While starting to save for their kids’ college education.  And their retirement.  They even start going to church.  To get their kids started on the right foot.  And to try and keep their kids from doing everything they did when they were young.

The parents have worked long and hard.  They have a family.  And grandchildren.  They want the best for their family.  And a happy and secure retirement.  After playing by the rules all of their lives they don’t want to rock the boat now that they are so close to retirement.  So they are very pleased to stay with the proven ways of the past.  And prefer to help others at their church.  Rather than giving money to a leviathan government.

Politics is a procession.  We tend to start on the Left.  Work our way through the Center.  And end on the Right.  For we tend to grow less radical with age.  Because as we age we accumulate wealth and have far more to lose with radical change.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT140: “There’s more to women than their vaginas.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 19th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Republicans don’t Treat Women like the Taliban Treats Women despite what the Left Says

Is there a war on women?  You would think so if you listen to the Democrats.  Who are shouting from the rooftops that the Republicans are waging a war on women.  That they want to impose nothing less than Sharia Law when it comes to women.  To prevent women from having abortions.  To take away their birth control.  To take away their cancer screening.  Forcing women to give up their careers.  And forcing them into motherhood.  Keeping them barefoot and pregnant.  Doing nothing but having babies and raising kids.  Which according to the Left is worse than 18th century slavery.  Even though women with careers are still having families later in their lives.  Because despite motherhood being worse than 18th century slavery a lot of women still want to raise a family.

Of course this Republican war on women is nonsense.  For they said the same things during the 2 election cycles of George W. bush.  The one election cycle of George H.W. Bush.  The 2 election cycles of Ronald Reagan.  During these 20 years of Republican administrations what the Left warned about never came to be.  There was no Sharia Law imposed on women.  Women were as free as they ever were.  There were no morality police.  There was still porn, strip clubs and prostitution during these years.  Birth control was still available.  Abortion, too.  And, yes, even cancer screening.   Those of us with mothers, wives, sisters and daughters who entered these Republican times emerged from these Republican times with their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters.  For the Republicans didn’t treat women like the Taliban treats women.  Despite what the Left says.

Those old enough to remember previous election cycles have heard this war on women rhetoric so often that it becomes white noise that we just tune out.  We don’t take it seriously.  We take it for what it is.  Subterfuge.  The Left’s policies have a record of failure.  Especially their Keynesian economic policies.  Which gave us the stagflation of the Seventies.  The subprime mortgage crisis.  And the Great Recession.  For expansionary monetary policies extend economic booms allowing prices to rise higher than the market would have them.  So the recessions that follow to correct these prices are longer and more painful.  As those prices have a lot farther to fall.  So when your policies have a history of failure it is hard to run on those policies.  So you attack your opponents.  And not their policies.  Because they know conservative policies are better than theirs.

Because of Birth Control and Abortion Men don’t have to Bother with Romance

So who does this strategy work on?  Young people.  People without any real responsibilities yet.  Young women empowering themselves by having sex if they choose to have sex.  And the young men having sex with them.  The women want birth control to be able to have sex without getting pregnant.  And they want access to abortion.  Just in case that birth control doesn’t work.  Or if they surrender to their passions without taking any precautions.  While the young men are always for anything that increases their chances of having sex with the ladies.  So, yes, these young women may lead with their vaginas when it comes to politics.  And vote Democrat just because of their reproductive rights.  For it may be the only thing important in their lives.  As women’s reproductive rights empower women.  It lets them escape the tyranny of motherhood that is little different than 18th century slavery.  It lets them to proudly take control of their sexuality.  At any time they choose.  Whenever they please.  But it’s a different story with men.

Women don’t like men objectifying them.  Which is why they get exasperated.  And say things like, “My eyes are up here.”  Or, “Keep it holstered, buddy.”  As men have only one thing on their mind.  The empowerment of women.  That is, sex.  A lot of women are put off by the constant sexual advances of men.  They decry that all they want is sex.  That they don’t want to talk to them.  To get to know them as a person.  To take long walks on a beach.  Go ballroom dancing.  To take them to the ballet.  To simply hold hands.  Or discuss a book that changed their lives.  Men are just not interested in anything but getting them into bed.  They hit on the pretty ladies in the office.  Making some women uncomfortable.  Some even filing complaints because their behavior makes a hostile workplace.  So women can empower themselves with birth control and access to abortion so they can fully explore their sexuality whenever they want without any shame but when men think about sex they’re just a bunch of dirty old men and perverts.

So reproductive rights kind of send mixed messages to men and women.  It means women can be more sexually active.  Empowering them to explore their sexuality.  Freely and without shame.  Something men understand.  Which leads to them objectifying women.  Because with birth control and abortion men don’t have to bother with romance.  Or wait for marriage.  Because with birth control and abortion men just expect women to have sex without the bother of romance.  Just like Charlie Harper on Two and Half Men.  A character his female company grew to hate.  As shown in the opening of the new season after they fired Charlie Sheen.  Where many of his past lady friends attending his funeral lamented the closed-casket ceremony.  Because they couldn’t spit in Charlie’s face.  Funny.  Because a lot of women feel that way about men like Charlie Harper.  Men who enjoy nothing more than the empowerment of women.

Those on the Right don’t believe Women are One Dimensional

So this is what women are to those on the Left.  Vaginas.  One dimensional people.  Who care about nothing but birth control and abortion.  Which is rather sexist.  The reason why the Left wants to provide women with birth control and abortion is so they can have careers like men.  While still having a good time like men.  Who have careers.  And enjoy casual sex.

But while these men can also be interested in the economy, the unemployment rate, interest rates, the inflation rate, the federal deficit, the federal debt, the impact of the federal debt on their children, national security, property taxes, income taxes, the cost of gasoline, food prices, heating costs, their kids’ public schools, etc., women cannot.  No, they can have no other interests but their reproductive rights.  At least according to those on the Left.  Something those on the Right find offensive.  As they’re talking about our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters.

Those on the Right don’t believe women are one dimensional.  They believe that there’s more to women than their vaginas.  We don’t believe those things men can be interested in are too complex for women.  For we believe women can be just as smart as men.  Even smarter.  And they can actually be interested in something other than their vaginas.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Left goes after the Youth Vote before they Grow Up and Become Responsible

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 13th, 2012

Week in Review

The Left always urges kids to vote the moment they turn 18.  That it’s important they exercise their right to vote.  Because their views and opinions are important.  Because they haven’t become corrupted or jaded yet by politics.  We need to listen to the young.  Because they are our future.  And not a bunch of doddering old people who vote just to protect their bank accounts, their homes, their children and their country.  No, these people are just too old and blind to the progressive needs of our country.  Maybe they knew what was important in their youth but they’re completely out of touch today.  And therefore we need the young to help us move the nation forward.  For they may be young but they’re smart, responsible and in touch with the important issues of the day (see Investigators suspect teen in fatal LI crash was ‘high’ by KIERAN CROWLEY, ERIN CALABRESE and DAN MANGAN posted 10/9/2012 on the New York Post).

Joseph Beer, 17, “was driving way too fast” right before the spectacular crash at about 3:40 a.m. yesterday on the Southern State Parkway in Nassau County, a law-enforcement source said.

Authorities suspect Beer “was high” at the time the his new 2012 Subaru STI slid across a section of the highway known as Dead Man’s Curve and went sailing into a group of trees — totaling the car and ejecting all five people inside, the source said.

Only Beer survived — but killed instantly were his four recently graduated classmates from Richmond Hill HS in Queens, all of whom were 18 years old…

Because Beer only had a learner’s permit, he was barred from driving between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m., from driving without a licensed 21-year-old driver in the car to supervise him, and from carrying any passengers under age 21 who were family members.

There but for the grace of God go I.  We’ve all done stupid things in our youth.  Despite things like this happening to someone we know or to someone in our community.  But we are so stupid in our youth that we continue to do stupid things.  Which is why we can’t drink until we’re 21.  And can’t drive after 9 PM without a licensed 21-year-old (or older) driver to help us stop doing stupid things.  But as much as we try to stop these stupid things from happening they do.  Which is why car insurance is so expensive for young drivers.  Because of the stupid things we do in our youth.

Had it not been for the youth vote Barak Obama would not have won the 2008 election.  But if they’re not mature enough to drink until they’re 21 perhaps they’re not mature enough to vote either.  President Obama’s Keynesian policies have devastated the economy.  They caused a credit downgrade for the first time in history.  We have had record trillion dollar deficits in each year of his presidency.  We have a record debt thanks to his deficits.  His stimulus bill rewarded campaign contributors while creating no ‘shovel ready’ jobs.  His bailout of GM and Chrysler did what a normal bankruptcy filing would have done only without screwing the bond holders and giving the company to the UAW to bail out their pension plan while leaving the same structure in place that prevented them from selling vehicles profitably in the first place.  His investments in green energy rewarded campaign contributors instead of creating jobs of the future.  His attacks on oil have raised the price of gasoline and food.  And his attack on coal is setting up the country for an energy future of rolling blackouts and outages.

A lot of old people understand this because they have experienced a lot of this before.  They lived through the disaster of the Carter presidency.  And the Morning in America of Ronald Reagan.  They know that the pro-business policies of Warren Harding/Calvin Coolidge, JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush produced both economic growth and increased tax revenue.  And they’ve already lived through a decline in American Exceptionalism once during the Seventies and don’t want to live through it again now.  Especially those who immigrated to the United States for a better life.  And they’re seeing it decline again right before their eyes thanks to excessive government spending and attacks on success.  Old people see this.  They’ve experienced it.  Which is why they vote the way they vote.  Not for promises of free birth control or access to unlimited abortion services.  Or the decriminalization of marijuana.  Issues that weigh heavily on the minds of young voters.  Which the Left knows.  And exploits.  Which is how they got Barack Obama elected.  And put the nation into the precarious position it is now in.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Left Hate Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan because they Restored their Countries to Greatness

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 16th, 2012

Week in Review

The British Left hates Margaret Thatcher.  So much that they are already selling t-shirts celebrating her death.  Though she is still alive.  For she is the Ronald Reagan of Great Britain.  A singularly remarkable person who came along just in time to save a nation in decline.  And restore it to greatness (see The Left hates Margaret Thatcher because she reminds them they are wrong about everything by Daniel Hannan posted 9/12/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Now and again, we are reminded of the sheer nastiness of a certain kind of Leftie. Not, let me stress, all Lefties: I have Labour friends who are motivated by a more or less uncomplicated desire to help the disadvantaged.

But they march alongside some committed haters who define their politics not by what they like, but by what they loathe. They also define opponents not as human beings with whom they disagree, but as legitimate targets.

A lack of empathy, bordering almost on sociopathy sits behind their talk of caring and sharing.

Not much different from the American Left.  Who hate their political opponents.  And attack them personally.  With no understanding of the underlying policy in question.  For they never say they prefer tax, borrow and print (money) Keynesian economics over a more Austrian approach of sound money and low taxation.  The kind of policies that have made great economies great.  Instead they say their opponents hate women, hate poor people, hate children, hate seniors, etc.  And yet they are the tolerant people.  Who tolerate everyone that agrees with them.  And hates all those who disagree with them.  Making these tolerant some of the most intolerant of people.  Which is why they hate Ronald Reagan in America.  And they hate Margaret Thatcher in Britain.  Even though they both returned their countries to prosperity after a decade of decline and despair.

I am just old enough to remember the end of the Seventies: power cuts, three-day weeks, constant strikes, price and income controls, inflation.

Worst of all, I remember the sense of despair, the conviction that Britain was finished.

I don’t believe you can grasp Margaret Thatcher’s achievement without the context of what she displaced.

Throughout the Sixties and Seventies, this country had been outperformed by every European economy. ‘Britain is a tragedy — it has sunk to borrowing, begging, stealing until North Sea oil comes in,’ said Henry Kissinger.

The Wall Street Journal in 1975 was blunter: ‘Goodbye, Great Britain: it was nice knowing you.’

Margaret Thatcher’s victory in 1979 was like a thaw after the cruellest of winters. Inflation fell, strikes stopped, the latent enterprise of a free people was awakened.

Having lagged behind for a generation, we outgrew every European country in the Eighties except Spain (which was bouncing back from an even lower place). As revenues flowed in, taxes were cut and debt was repaid, while public spending — contrary to almost universal belief — rose.

In America we were mired in stagflation and a record high misery index of the Carter Seventies.  Much of which he inherited from LBJ’s Great Society and Richard Milhous Nixon’s abandoning of the quasi gold standard.  The Nixon Shock.  Because he refused to cut Great Society spending.  As did Gerald Ford.  As did Jimmy Carter.  No one wanted to cut back spending and continued to print money to pay for the Great Society spending causing the record high inflation during the Seventies.  Which added to the high unemployment that gave Jimmy Carter that horrible misery index.  And malaise.  Like Daniel Hannan I’m just old enough to remember how bad it was in the Seventies.  And how great Ronald Reagan’s Morning in America was.  We were better off after 4 years of Ronald Reagan than we were after 4 years of Jimmy Carter.  And the numbers proved it.  Lower tax rates increased tax revenue.  Allowing even greater government spending.  Which was the source of the Reagan deficits.  Not the tax cuts.

In the Falklands, Margaret Thatcher showed the world that a great country doesn’t retreat forever.

And by ending the wretched policy of one-sided detente that had allowed the Soviets to march into Europe, Korea and Afghanistan, she set in train the events that would free hundreds of millions of people from what, in crude mathematical terms, must be reckoned the most murderous ideology humanity has known.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan stood together against communism.  While Jimmy Carter eroded America’s military power so much that the Soviets actually put together a nuclear first-strike doctrine.  For unlike the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) of previous administrations the Soviets believed they could launch and win a nuclear war against Jimmy Carter.  Reagan and Thatcher rebuilt and deployed nuclear and regular military forces to reduce the threat of a Soviet first-strike.  And made the enemies of Great Britain and the United States fear and respect our military might.  It was peace through strength.  For all free and democratic countries.  Not the detente of Jimmy Carter that encouraged the Soviets to add a nuclear first-strike doctrine.  The beginning of the end of the Cold War began under Thatcher’s and Reagan’s watch.

Why, then, do Lefties loathe her so much..?

No, what Lefties (with honourable exceptions) find hard to forgive is the lady’s very success: the fact that she rescued a country that they had dishonoured and impoverished; that she inherited a Britain that was sclerotic, indebted and declining and left it proud, wealthy and free; that she never lost an election to them.

Their rage, in truth, can never be assuaged, for she reminds them of their own failure.

The same reasons the American Left hates Ronald Reagan.  Because he, too, returned his country to greatness.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Teens who Smoke a lot of Marijuana suffer Permanent Brain Damage

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 1st, 2012

Week in Review

A new study is in.  And the conclusion is that marijuana use is bad.  Especially if you’re a teen (see Teen pot use linked to later declines in IQ by MALCOLM RITTER and NICK PERRY posted 8/27/2012 on the Associated Press).

Teens who routinely smoke marijuana risk a long-term drop in their IQ, a new study suggests…

Study participants from New Zealand were tested for IQ at age 13, likely before any significant marijuana use, and again at age 38. The mental decline between those two ages was seen only in those who started regularly smoking pot before age 18…

Pot is the most popular illegal drug in the world, with somewhere between 119 million and 224 million users between the ages of 15 and 64 as of 2010, the United Nations reported. Within the United States, 23 percent of high school students said they’d recently smoked marijuana, making it more popular than cigarettes, the federal government reported in June.

More popular than cigarettes?  Funny thing about a marijuana joint.  It doesn’t have a filter.  Smoking a joint is like smoking a Camel unfiltered cigarette.  Like people smoked once upon a time.  When smokers were smokers.  And smoked hardcore.  But now there is a war on smoking.  Something the Left endorses.  Yet those on the Left are generally in favor of decriminalizing drugs.  Especially marijuana.  The Left took Joe Camel off cigarette advertising because it was encouraging kids to start smoking.  So they got addicted to cigarettes.  They even sued Big tobacco.  But kids smoke more marijuana than cigarettes.  Getting more cancer-causing smoke in their lungs from illegal marijuana than from legal tobacco.  So while the Left plays nanny by trying to get cigarettes away from us they are trying to put kids at more risk.  For if marijuana is decriminalized it will be much easier for kids to smoke it.  Putting them at greater risk of lung cancer.  As well as that mental decline.  Guess the Left doesn’t like kids.

Young people “don’t think it’s risky,” said Staci Gruber, a researcher at the Harvard-affiliated MacLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass. Gruber, who didn’t participate in the new work, said the idea that marijuana harms the adolescent brain is “something we believe is very likely,” and the new finding of IQ declines warrants further investigation…

The study drew on survey data from more than 1,000 people in New Zealand, everybody born in the town of Dunedin during a year-long span ending in 1973. In addition to IQ tests, they were interviewed five times between ages 18 and 38, including questions related to their marijuana use.

At age 18, 52 participants indicated they had become dependent on marijuana, meaning that they continued to use it despite its causing significant health, social or legal problems. Ninety-two others reported dependence starting at a later age.

Researchers compared their IQ scores at age 13 to the score at age 38 and found a drop only in those who had become dependent by 18…

Among participants who’d been dependent at 18 and in at least one later survey, quitting didn’t remove the problem. IQ declines showed up even if they’d largely or entirely quit using pot at age 38, analysis showed…

The researchers also surveyed people who knew the study participants well at age 38. They found that the more often participants were rated as marijuana-dependent in the surveys over their lifetimes, the more memory and attention problems were noticed by their acquaintances over the previous year.

I think we all know someone who was dependent on marijuana when he or she was a kid.  One of my best friends was your classic stoner in junior high school.  He smoked and partied through junior high and part way through high school.  When he had the first of five kids.  And then dropped out.  Got a job.  Became a Republican.  And a responsible parent.  Both he and his wife.  Who remained together to raise all five kids.  And struggled to counteract the liberal education of their children when they got home from school.

Sometimes during a conversation my friend would stop mid-conversation, cock his head and stare blankly as he tried to remember what he was saying.  Then he laughed and joked about all the brain cells he destroyed when he was a kid.  Wishing he could have them back.  I didn’t know him before the brain damage.  But he sure was a good guy after the brain damage.  I always wonder what he might have done if he and cannabis never crossed paths.  Engineer?  Physicist?  Doctor?  President?  Who knows what he may have contributed had it not been for his introduction to cannabis.  I never asked but I wonder about that first time.  Was it peer pressure?  Was it a funny movie with a lovable stoner character?  Or did he have a friend with a dad who smoked pot?  It was something.  And whatever it was it changed his life forever.

And I wonder what might have been with all those other stoners out there.  What they might have done had they not descended into drug use.  Which makes the drug debate a difficult one.  Much violent crime traces back to illegal drug trafficking.  So decriminalizing drugs would go a long way to reduce that crime.  However, this isn’t the same as repealing prohibition.  Sure, if you drink enough you can kill yourself.  And abuse your family.  You can even get a liver transplant.  But you can never recover your damaged brain cells.  Once they’re gone they’re gone.  And there’s no going back to who you were.

www.PITHOCRATE.com

Share

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

No Republican Administration ever Subjected Women to a Morality Police like they do in Iran

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

In the election cycle the Left typically campaigns on a recurring theme.  That Republicans are anti-women.  That they want to overturn Roe v. Wade.  That they want to prevent access to birth control.  And turn women into clones of Donna Reed and lock them in 1950s suburban America.  Because Republicans hate women.  At least that’s the meme.  Now contrast that with a country that really hates women (see Struggle over what to wear in Iran by Jason Rezaian posted 7/21/2012 on The Washington Post).

Mandatory female covering known as hijab has been a defining element of Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Although the laws regarding proper cover haven’t changed, some women have grown bolder in interpreting the limits of what they can wear, creating a conflict that inevitably flares each summer as temperatures climb.

The government’s offensive this year has been marked by the stationing of mixed-gender teams of morality police in Tehran’s main squares.

In recent weeks, 53 coffee shops and 87 restaurants have been closed in Tehran for serving customers with improper hijab or for other gender-related offenses, such as permitting women to smoke hookah pipes. Concerts have been abruptly canceled because of inappropriate dress and too much contact between male and female fans. Approximately 80 stands at an international food fair were closed last month because, officials said, the women working at them were either breaking hijab rules or wearing too much makeup.

Those arrested face up to two months in prison or even lashing, penalties that have been on the books for years but have rarely been imposed…

Mostafa, a 46-year-old marketing consultant, described how his 16-year-old daughter was arrested in a crowded shopping mall. “They coaxed her into the police van and told her they just wanted to talk to her,” he explained. “Once she was in the van, the whole atmosphere changed, and they said things that made her cry.”

After a brief time in custody, his daughter, Banafshe, was released. “Do you know what her response was to the whole episode?” he asked. “She said, ‘Dad, as soon as I finish high school, I’m leaving this country forever.’ ”

Let’s hope she gets the chance to leave her country.  So she can enjoy living free from oppression.

Morality police?  You know, this is the kind of thing the Left says the Republicans will do if we elect them to office.  Though after 8 years of Ronald Reagan, 4 years of George H.W. Bush and 8 years of George W. Bush that didn’t happen.  Quite the contrary.  The porn industry exploded during the Eighties.  Sleazy topless bars became high-end gentlemen’s clubs.  Television got cruder.  Girls drank to excess on Spring Break and made amateur porn videos.  Sometimes unbeknownst to them.  No, women have been, and continue to be, free to do pretty much whatever they want.  Even when we elect Republicans to office.  Even if these Republicans would prefer that their daughters not dance at gentlemen’s clubs or go into the porn industry.

The Republicans didn’t like this.  They fought against some if it through legal channels.  But the liberals and their lawyers won these contests.  Moralize as they may have tried nothing changed.  But one thing the Republicans never proposed was having morality police stop 16-year old girls in the malls.  At most some religious people told some that they would burn in hell if they stayed on their current wayward paths.  Strong words but not quite the same as being locked up by the state.  Or getting whipped.  Makes living under a Republican administration sound a whole lot freer than life in Iran.  And given a choice I’m sure any woman would choose to live under a Republican administration rather than choosing to live in Iran.  And if that’s the case than Republicans can’t really hate women, can they?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

FT122: “Japan’s Lost Decade helped the Clinton economy by reducing imports while the global slowdown does nothing for the Obama economy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 15th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Japanese Government made Money Cheap and Plentiful to Borrow creating a Keynesian Dream but an Austrian Nightmare

Once upon a time Americans feared the Japanese.  Their awesome might.  And their relentless advances.  One by one the Japanese added new properties to their international portfolio.  They appeared unstoppable.  Throughout the Eighties everything was made in Japan.  Government partnered with business and formed Japan Inc.  And they dominated the world economy in the Eighties.  A U.S. Democrat nominee for president held up Japan Inc. as the model to follow.  For they had clearly shown how government can make the free market better.  Or so this candidate said.

But it didn’t last.  Why?  Because in the end the Japanese just interfered too much with market forces.  Businesses invested in each other.  Insulating themselves from the capital markets.  Allowing them to make bad investments to sustain bad business planning.  All facilitated with cheap credit.  Government made money cheap and plentiful to borrow.  And they borrowed.  A Keynesian dream.  But an Austrian nightmare.  Because they used that money to make even more bad investments (or ‘malinvestments’ in the vernacular of the Austrian school of economics).  Creating a real estate bubble.  And a stock market bubble.  Bubbles are never good, though.  Because they can’t last.  They must pop.  And when they do it isn’t pretty.

The U.S. just went through real estate bubble that peaked in 2006.  Money was so cheap to borrow that people were buying $300,000+ McMansions.  Anyone could walk in and get a no-documentation loan with nothing down.  People were buying houses and flipping them.  And people who couldn’t qualify for a mortgage could get a subprime mortgage.  Further pushing house prices higher.  Not because of real demand.  But because of this artificial tweaking of the free market by the government.  Making that money so cheap to borrow.  And when all that cheap credit caused inflation elsewhere in the economy the Fed finally tapped the brakes.  And increased interest rates.  Raising monthly payments on all those subprime mortgages.  Leading to a wave of defaults.  The subprime mortgage crisis.  And the Great Recession.

Japan’s Deflationary Spiral gave American Domestic Manufacturers a Huge Advantage

This is basically what happened in Japan during the Nineties.  The government had juiced the economy so much that they grew great big bubbles.  Ran up asset prices to incredible heights.  But then the bubble burst.  And those prices all fell.  They fell for so long and so far that Japan suffered a deflationary spiral.  Throughout the Nineties (and counting).  The Nineties were a painful economic time.  After a decade or so of inflation the market corrected that with a decade of recession.  And deflation.  A decade of economic activity the Japanese just lost.  The Lost Decade.  But it wasn’t all bad.

At least, in America.  There was still some Reaganomics in the American economy.  Producing real economic growth.  But there was also a bubble.  In the stock market.  The dot-com bubble.  The Internet was brand new and everybody was hoping to be in on the next big thing.  The next Microsoft.  Or the next Apple.  Also, unable (or unwilling) to learn from the mistakes of the Japanese real estate bubble the Clinton administration was making it very uncomfortable for banks to NOT approve mortgage applications for people who were unqualified.  Putting more people into houses who couldn’t afford them.

So while the Clinton administration was trying to change America (during the first 2 years they tried to nationalize health care against the will of the people) the economy did well.  For awhile.  Irrational exuberance was pushing the stock market to new heights as investors poured money into companies that didn’t have a dime of revenue yet.  And never would.  Clinton had to renege on his promise on the middle class tax cut because things were worse than he thought when he promised to make that middle class tax cut.  (Isn’t it always the way that when it comes to tax cuts some politicians can’t keep their promise because they were too stupid to know how bad things really were?)  Added into this mix was Japan’s Lost Decade.  Their deflationary spiral increased the value of the Yen.  And made their exports more expensive.  Giving the American domestic manufacturers a huge advantage.  The economy boomed during the Nineties.  For a mix of reasons.  They even projected a budget surplus thanks to the economic woe of the Japanese.  But then the dot-com bubble burst.  Giving Bill Clinton’s successor a nasty recession.

When a Recession ails you the Best Medicine has been and always will be Reaganomics

The Left always talks about fair trade.  And about the unfair practice of foreign manufacturers giving Americans inexpensive goods that they want to buy.  So their answer to make these unfair trade practices fair is to slap an import tariff on those inexpensive foreign goods.  To protect the domestic manufacturers.  For they believe it’s that simple.  And plug their ears and sing “la la la” when you discuss David Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage.  Ricardo says countries should specialize in the things they’re good at.  And import the things others are better at.  When everyone does this we use our resources most efficiently.  And the overall wealth in the international economy increases.  Making the world a better place.  And increases our standard of living.  But the rent-seekers disagree with this.  They want high tariffs.  And obstacles for foreign imports.  To protect the domestic businesses that can’t sell as inexpensively or at such high levels of quality.

Some would point to Japan’s Lost Decade as proof.  Where their deflationary spiral removed a lot of foreign competition to American manufacturing.  Allowing them to sell at higher prices and lower quality.  All the while protecting American jobs.  And, yes, Japan’s woes did help the American domestic manufacturers during the Nineties.  But it wasn’t because they could raise prices and lower quality in the face of low foreign competition.  It was because there was still enough Reaganomics in the country to produce some vibrant economic activity.  That encouraged entrepreneurs to take chances and bring new things to market.  Which is a huge difference from the current economic picture.

The Eurozone sovereign debt crisis has plunged Europe into a recessionary freefall.  Much like the Japanese suffered in the Nineties.  Yet the American domestic manufacturers aren’t benefiting from this huge decline in foreign competition.  Why?  Because the Obama administration has excised any remaining vestiges of Reaganomics out of the economy.  Everything the rent-seekers could ever hope for they have.  Only without tariffs.  And yet the Obama economy still lingers in recession.  Because irrational exuberance and barriers to free trade don’t create real economic growth.  And an administration hostile to capitalism doesn’t inspire entrepreneurs to take chances.  No.  What encourages them to take chances are low taxes.  And less costly and less punishing regulations.  For programs like Obamacare just scare businesses from hiring any new employees.  Because they have no idea the ultimate costs of those new employees. 

Now contrast that to the low taxation and relaxed regulatory climate of Reaganomics.  That produced solid economic growth.  And this growth was BEFORE Japan’s Lost Decade.  Which just goes to show you how solid that growth was.  And proved David Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage.  For both Japan and the United States did well during the Eighties.  Unlike Clinton’s economy in the Nineties that only did well because Japan did not.  But the good times only lasted until the irrational exuberance of the dot-com bubble brought on an American recession.  Which George W. Bush pulled us out of with a little Reaganomics.  Tax cuts.  Proving yet again that higher taxes and higher regulations don’t create economic activity. Tax cuts do.  And fewer regulations.  In other words, when a recession ails you the best medicine has been and always will be Reaganomics.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Opportunity Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 4th, 2012

Economics 101

Those on the Left are all for Choice as long as you Choose what they want you to Choose

Choice.  It’s what life is.  Every day we make hundreds of choices in our life.  The communists called that a burden.  And that their way removed all that stress from our lives.  The stress of constantly having to choose.  They came up with a new freedom.  Freedom from choice.  To live under oppression.  Like a slave.  Where you no longer had the burden of making a choice every waking hour of your day.  You simply took what the government gave you.  And relaxed.  Truly free.

It turned out the people living under communism preferred having that burden of choice.  And took every opportunity to escape the communist ‘freedom’.  To a freedom where you were free to choose whatever you wanted.  Instead of taking what central planners gave you.  Those on the Left always had a soft spot in their hearts for communism.  And Soviet central planners.  For they never cared that much for free markets.  Laissez faire capitalism.  Freedom of choice.  Because people so often chose poorly in their opinion.  For they weren’t as educated and enlightened as they were on the Left.  And therefore chose the wrong kind of foods to eat.  The wrong kind of beverages to drink.  The wrong kind of cars to drive.  The wrong kind of power to generate.  And the wrong people to vote for.

No.  Those on the Left are no fans of choice.  Except, of course, when it comes to abortion.  When it comes to abortion then they are big fans of choice.  But not so much when it comes to us choosing what to eat, drink and drive.  Or how we generate our energy.  So when it comes to choice those on the Left are like the Soviet central planners.  They are all for choice.  As long as you choose what they want you to choose.

When making any Economic Decisions we make our Choice based on Opportunity Costs 

But we choose.  Because we can.  At least with most things.  But how do we choose?  Does price determine what we choose?  Sometimes.  Quality?  Sometimes.  Loyalty?  Sometimes.  Sometimes it’s one of these things.  Sometimes a combination of all of these things.  Sometimes it’s none of these things.  So what is it that makes up your mind when confronted with a choice?  Do you know?  You do.  For obviously you’re making the choice.  But the ‘why’ we may have to coax out of you.  For you will probably not be able to explain why.  At least not as well an economist can.

The study of economics is all about choice.  And trying to determine what influences people’s choices.  So economists can offer economic policies to maximize economic activity.  By maximizing that thing we ultimately trade for.  Which is what?  Happiness.  We choose to increase our happiness.  Or utility in the parlance of economics.  The things we choose are the things that will give us the greatest happiness.  Or the greatest utility.  But if you’re like me you never saw ‘utility’ or ‘happiness’ expressed as units on a price tag in a store.  Price tags show only price.  Which tells us little how happy something will make us.  So how do we choose the things that will maximize our happiness?  Especially if you’re looking at two different things that have the same price?

Easy.  We don’t make our decision by looking at what we’re buying.  We make our decision based on what we’re not buying.  What we are giving up by buying this thing or that service?  What might have been had it not been for this purchase?  What opportunity we’re passing on to make this purchase?  What cost are we paying in lost opportunity by committing to this purchase?  In other words, when making any economic decisions we make our choice based on opportunity costs.  On an amount of happiness we’re giving up to acquire some other amount of happiness.  And whatever the number of our choices the end result is the same.  What we choose gives us more happiness than all other possible alternatives.  Regardless of price, quality or loyalty.  Though they could influence us when there is a tie.

Liberals make us Buy not what Increases our Happiness but what Increases their Happiness

You can’t put a price on happiness.  That’s what they say.  And they are right.  Whoever they are.  For example, luxury cars are nice.  But they are expensive.  Subcompacts are not as nice as luxury cars.  But they are not as expensive either.  So if you were choosing between these two cars which one would you choose?  I can’t tell because I don’t know your income.  But I can guess at your decision process.  You’re going to compare opportunity costs.  Driving a luxury car gives you enormous amounts of happiness.  For the limited time you spend driving it.  Enormous happiness for a limited amount of time.  Okay.  But what are the opportunity costs?

Let’s say your daily commute to and from work is one hour.  But when you get home you enjoy 4 hours between surfing the Internet and watching cable television.  When you’re not at work or home you like to use social media on your smartphone interacting with your friends.  And using your smart phone apps to maximize your fun in the evenings and on the weekend.  You like to spend your Sunday mornings at the coffee shop with you tablet reading the online Sunday papers.  The hours of driving happiness come to 10 hours a week.  And the hours of online/watching cable happiness comes to 32 hours a week.  Now being that you spend more time online or watching cable than driving then it’s safe to say that driving brings you less happiness than those other activities.  Because luxury cars are expensive they come with a high monthly payment and a high insurance premium.  Which means you will have to cut back on other spending to afford the luxury car.  So to afford the luxury car you have to give up your cable and home Internet access.  And cut back on your minutes on your smartphone.

The opportunity cost of the luxury car is giving up cable TV and cutting back on Internet access and smartphone minutes.  The opportunity cost of keeping those things is getting a subcompact car instead of a luxury car.  This is the ultimate decision we make in all of our economic decisions.  Which will cost us more in sacrificed happiness in the long run?  Which makes those decisions easy.  In the above example you would probably have never given the luxury car any serious thought.  This is why free markets work so well.  Why laissez faire capitalism works so well.  Because the economy is full of individuals making these decisions quickly.  Far quicker than any Soviet state planner.  And with far more insight into our own wants and desires than any Soviet state planner.  And in the aggregate this drives economic activity.  Bringing the things we want to market.  The things that give us the greatest amount of happiness.  The things that have the lowest opportunity costs.  Unlike Soviet central planning.  Or American liberal Democrat central planning. 

No.  These people try to change our purchasing decisions.  Making us buy not what increases our happiness.  But what increases their happiness.  Which is why when liberal Democrats are in power there is a general economic decline.  Because they do alter our purchasing decisions.  By increasing the opportunity costs of the things that increase our happiness.  So that we buy fewer of them.  But we don’t buy more of the things they want us to buy.  Because those things don’t increase our happiness.  When they subsidize hybrid cars (paid for with higher taxes from us) to get us to buy them it doesn’t make the hybrid cars give us any more happiness.  It just leaves us with less money because of the higher taxes.  So we buy less of everything else.  And in the aggregate this lowers economic activity.  Leaving us all less happy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT119: “To save American jobs the Left tries to keep out low-priced Mexican imports but does little to keep out low-priced Mexican labor.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 25th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Left opposes Cheap Mexican Labor in Mexico but they like having it in the U.S.

One of the more interesting things about the political left is their inconsistency about their opposition to free trade.  They opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) because they said all the good manufacturing jobs would go south of the border.  They said Mexicans work too cheap.  And that was unfair to the American worker.  For the American’s generous wage and benefit packages could never compete with the Mexicans who are willing to work for so much less.  With NAFTA rich American capitalists would just screw their American employees and move their operations to Mexico.  Where they would exploit the poor hapless Mexican workers.  Forcing them to work at a fraction of the American wage and benefit package.

Of course that’s not the way the poor hapless Mexican workers see it.  They loved those manufacturing jobs.  Because those jobs had some of the most generous wage and benefit packages available in Mexico.  They flooded those factories.  And the lucky few to get those jobs did quality work.  The things they made in these Mexican plants were as good as anything in the U.S.  And they cost less.  Allowing the American consumer to buy more.  Which raised the standard of living for everyone.  The American consumer.  And the Mexican consumer.  The only ones who lost were the few working in those U.S. plants that closed.  Who became bitter.  And demanded the government impose tariffs on those low-cost imports.  To save American jobs.  While lowering the standard of living for the American consumer.  And the Mexican consumer.

So the Left opposes this cheap Mexican labor.  In Mexico.  They don’t seem to mind it so much, on the other hand, when it’s in the U.S.  The Left opposes building a wall on the border.  They oppose asking for proof of citizenship from anyone who looks Mexican in a region with a high concentration of illegal aliens.  They oppose requiring a photo I.D. to vote.  They oppose deportations of illegal aliens who’ve been living and working in the U.S.  While they are in favor of blanket amnesty for those here illegally.  And providing them a fast-track to U.S. citizenship.  Which is rather odd considering the way the Left feels about that cheap Mexican labor.  So why are they opposed to imports manufactured by low-cost labor while they are in favor of bringing that low-cost labor into the United States.  For either way it will displace a higher-paid U.S. worker from a job.

The Lost Tax Revenue from Abortion and Birth Control comes to about $155 Billion per Year 

 Yes, that is a good question, isn’t it?  Some, I’m sure, will say once those illegals become legals they’ll join unions.  Which would make them no longer cheap labor.  Perhaps.  But with the decline in U.S manufacturing there aren’t a lot of union jobs anymore.  It is more likely that they will go to where there are good manufacturing jobs.  In the nonunion South.  So it is likely they would add further pressure on those high union wages and benefits.  So why, then, would the Left want to grant citizenship to those here illegally while at the same time opposing cheap Mexican labor?  Two reasons.  Abortions.  And birth control. 

As it is in most things in life it’s about the money.  The Left likes to tax and spend.  Well, not so much like but love.  It’s what they live for.  They want to spend money to provide pensions.  Health care in retirement.  And now health care before retirement.  They want to spend money to end poverty.  They want to spend money to give everyone a college education.  They want to spend money to subsidize green energy.  They want to spend money for school lunches, childcare, art, public television/radio, birth control, abortions, etc.  If it’s something they can spend money on they want to spend money on it.  Of course to spend all of this money you need what?  That’s right.  Money.  And two of the Left’s defining issues have actually reduced the available money to spend.  Birth control and abortion.

According to Public Agenda the number of abortions increased during the Seventies until they totaled approximately 1,300,000 by the end of the decade.  They stayed at or above this level for a little over a decade and then started falling in the late Nineties.  Let’s take one year of these numbers and crunch some numbers.  If 1.3 million abortions didn’t happen and the women carried these babies to term and they earned the median income of $46,000 (and paid $7,530 in federal income taxes) today that would have come to an additional $8.4 billion in tax revenue per year.

According to the Guttmacher Institute there were 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15-44) in 2010.  Approximately 62% of these women were currently using birth control.  Bringing the number of women using birth control in 2010 to 38,440,000.  If birth control was unavailable let’s assume 50% of these women would have stopped having sex.  And let’s assume the women who continued to have sex became pregnant and carried their pregnancy to term.  Bringing in 19,220,000 new babies into the world.  Based on the median salary of $46,000 they would have contributed another $145 billion in tax revenue.  Added to the lost tax revenue from abortion that comes to a grand total of $155 billion in lost tax revenue per year.  Over a decade that comes to $1.5 trillion.

Granting Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens can make up for Lost Tax Revenue due to Birth Control and Abortion 

During the Obamacare debates the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the cost of Obamacare over a 10-year period at $940 billion.  They have since revised that up to $1.76 trillion.  The opponents of Obamacare say it is too costly.  With a national debt of already $15.7 trillion we simply can’t afford to pay for Obamacare.  The proponents of Obamacare have been using questionable accounting practices to get that number down.  Such as collecting new taxes before paying any benefits in some of those years in that 10-year projection.  But the interesting thing to note here is that these discussions would be moot had it not been for birth control and abortion.  Which has cost the nation in tax revenue what Obamacare will cost.

These numbers are only crude calculations.  A more detailed mathematical analysis would have produced a far greater number in lost tax revenue.  Because the population would have also been expanding.  So the numbers used as constants in the 10-year projections above would have been growing larger in each year of that 10-year projection.  And producing larger amounts of tax revenue in each of those 10 years.  This is why Social Security worked so well for the first few decades.  There was a growing population.  And there was always far more new workers entering the workforce than leaving it.  What changed that was birth control and abortion.  And people choosing to have smaller families.  Not a bad thing in itself.  But this decision to have smaller families has doomed Social Security and Medicaid.  For they created those programs based on larger population growth rates.  That simply no longer exist.  And the only way to fix that is by having a lot more babies quickly.  Or for the baby boomers to die off quicker.  Which critics of Obamacare say Obamacare will help do via death panels.

Or you could try something else.  You can jumpstart the population growth rate by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.  To make up for lost tax revenue due to birth control and abortion.  And what makes the illegals from Mexico so attractive to the Left is that many of them are devout Catholics.  Thanks to the Catholic Spanish Empire who brought their language, culture and religion to the New World.  And Catholics frown upon the use of abortion and birth control.  But this can be a risky bet for those on the Left.  Yes, they could really boost the population growth rate.  And they may get these new citizens’ votes in the early years out of gratitude.  But eventually the Left’s attacks on religion may eventually make these people vote Republican.  So they may get a large increase in tax revenue to spend.  Just as they lose power in Washington.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries