Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 28th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published July 8th, 2013)

Trying to follow a Baby Boom with a Baby Bust creates Problems in Advanced Economies with Large Welfare States

In the late 1960s began a movement for zero population growth.  It called for women to have only enough babies to replace the current population.  Not to have too many babies that would increase the population.  Nor have too few babies that the population declines.  Something that women could easily do because of birth control.  And, later, abortion.  The drive behind this was to save the planet.  By keeping large populations becoming like a plague of locusts that devour the earth’s resources and food until the planet can no longer sustain life.

China did these zero population growth people better.  By promoting a negative population growth rate.  Limiting parents to one child.  They did this because during the days of Mao’s China the country set some world records for famine.  Their communist state simply couldn’t provide for her people.  So to help their communist system avoid future famines they tried to limit the number of mouths they had to feed.  Of course, trying to follow a baby boom with a baby bust creates other problems.  Especially in advanced economies with large welfare states.

China’s one-child policy and the preference for boys have led to a shortage of women to marry.  Some Chinese men are even looking at ‘mail-order’ brides from surrounding countries.  But China is going to have an even greater problem caring for her elderly.  Just like Japan.  Japanese couples are having less than 1.5 babies per couple.  Meaning that each successive generation will be smaller than the preceding generation.  As couples aren’t even having enough children to replace themselves when they die.  Leaving the eldest generation the largest percentage of the overall population.  Being paid and cared for by the smallest percentage of the overall population.  The younger generation.

States with Aging Populations are Suffering Debt Crises because they Spend More than their Tax Revenue can Cover

As nations develop advanced economies people develop careers.  Moving from one well-paid job to another.  As they advance in their career.  Creating a lot of income to tax.  Allowing a large welfare state.  Which is similar to a Ponzi scheme.  Or pyramid scheme.  As long as more people are entering the workforce than leaving it their income taxes can pay for the small group at the top of the pyramid that leaves the workforce and begins consuming pension and health care benefits in their retirement.  And there is but one requirement of a successful pyramid scheme.  The base of the pyramid must expand greater than the tip of the pyramid.  The wider the base is relative to the top the more successive the pyramid scheme.  As we can see here.

Babies per Generation - Constant Replacement Birthrate

Generation 1 is at the top of the pyramid.  It is the oldest generation.  Which we approximate as a period of 20 years.  In our example Generation 1 are people aged 78-98.  They’re retired and collecting pension, health care and other benefits.  Some combination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, heating assistance, etc.  All paid for by Generation 2 (58-78), Generation 3 (38-58) and Generation 4 (18-38).  Each generation is assumed to bring 6 children into the world.  So these couples are not only replacing themselves but adding an additional 4 children to further increase the size of the population.  Which really makes running a pyramid scheme easy.  For if we assume each member in Generation 1 on average consumes $35,000 annually in benefits that Generations 2 through 4 pay for that comes to $555.56 per person annually.  Or $46.30 per person monthly.  Or $10.68 per person weekly.  Or $1.53 per person daily.  Amounts so small that Generations 2 through 4 can easily pay for Generation 1′s retirement.  Now let’s look at the impact of a declining birthrate with each successive generation.

Babies per Generation - Declining Replacement Birthrate

When all couples in each generation were having on average 6 children this added 1.9 billion new taxpayers.  Which greatly reduced each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs.  But thanks to birth control, abortion and the growing cost of living each successive generation has fewer babies.  Generation 2 only has 3 children.  Enough to replace themselves.  And add one new taxpayer.  Generation 3 has only 2 children.  Only enough to replace the parents.  Providing that zero population growth that was all the rage during the late 1960s and the 1970s.  While Generation 4 only has 1 child.  Not even enough to replace the parents when they die.  Causing a negative population growth rate.  Which is a big problem in an advanced economy with a large welfare state.  For instead of adding 1.9 billion new taxpayers they only add 217.5 million new taxpayers.  Greatly increasing each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs.  Instead of paying $555.56 per taxpayer they each have to pay $5,384.62 annually.  Or $448.72 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $103.55 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $14.79 per taxpayer daily.  Numbers that prove to be unsustainable.  The state simply cannot tax people this much for Generation 1′s retirement.  For if they did this and added it to the rest of government’s spending they’re taxing us to fund it would take away all of our income.  This is why advanced economies with aging populations are suffering debt crises.  Because their spending has grown so far beyond their ability to pay for it with tax revenue that they borrow massive amounts of money to finance it.

If you want a Generous Welfare State you need Parents to have More Children

If you carry this out two more generations so every generation only has one child the per taxpayer amount tops out at $14,736.84 annually.  Or $1,228.07 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $283.40 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $40.49 per taxpayer daily.  Amounts far too great for most taxpayers to pay.  This is what an aging population does in a country with a large welfare state.  It makes the population top-heavy in elderly people who no longer work (i.e., pay taxes) but consume the lion’s share of state benefits.  When couples were having 6 children each across the generations there was a ratio of 84 taxpayers per retiree.  When there was a declining replacement birthrate that ratio fell to 15 taxpayers per retiree.  If we look at this graphically we can see the pyramid shape of this generational population.

Generational Population - Constant Replacement Birthrate

With 84 taxpayers per retiree we can see a nice and wide base to the pyramid.  While the tip of the pyramid is only a small sliver of the base (Generation 4).  Making for a successful Ponzi scheme.  Far more people pay into the scheme.  While only a tiny few take money out of the scheme.  This is why Social Security and Medicare didn’t have any solvency problems until after birth control and abortion.  For these gave us a declining replacement birthrate over time.  Greatly shrinking the base of the pyramid.  Which made the tip no longer a small sliver of the base.  But much closer in size to the base.  That if it was an actual pyramid sitting on the ground it wouldn’t take much to push it over.  Unlike the above pyramid.  That we could never push over.  Which is why the above Ponzi scheme would probably never fail.  While the one below will definitely fail.

Generational Population - Declining Replacement Birthrate

If you want a generous welfare state where the state provides pensions, health care, housing and food allowances, etc., you need parents to have more children.  For the more children they have the more future taxpayers there will be.  Or you at least need a constant replacement birthrate.  But if that rate is below the rate of a prior baby boom the welfare state will be unsustainable UNLESS they slash spending.  The United States has a replacement birthrate below the rate of a prior baby boom.  While the Obama administration has exploded the size of welfare state.  Especially with the addition of Obamacare.  Making our Ponzi scheme more like the second chart.  As we currently have approximately 1.75 taxpayers supporting each social security recipient.  Meaning that it won’t take much pushing to topple our pyramid. We’re at the point where a slight breeze may do the trick.  For it will topple.  It’s just a matter of time.


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

FT214: “The far left has been and always will be an aristocratic-thinking, privilege-seeking people.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 21st, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Lawyers make a lot of Money without Contributing anything Tangible to Society

An attorney was sitting in his office late one night when Satan appeared before him.  Satan said, “I have a proposition for you.  You can win every case you try for the rest of your life.  Your clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you and you will make embarrassing sums of money.  All I want in exchange is your soul, your wife’s soul, your children’s souls, the souls of your parents, grandparents, parents-in-law, the souls of all your friends and law partners.”  The lawyer thought about this for a moment then asked, “So, what’s the catch?”

That’s funny, isn’t it?  Lawyers.  Ambulance chasers.  The butt of so many jokes.  Why?  Well, some will say they deserve it.  Because they do chase ambulances.  And will pass out their business cards if they’re on a sinking ship.  Because sinking ships are good for lawsuits.  And lawyers love to sue.  For they can make a lot of money without contributing anything tangible to society.  All they do is get between two parties when large sums of money change hands.  And put a portion of that money into their pockets.  That’s how they earn their living.  Taking money away from others.  They’re parasites.  Just to get rich.  And the big tort lawyers (those who sue people and businesses) get really rich.  Allowing them to live very privileged lives.

Take a class action lawsuit.  Where they bring a lot of wronged people together to sue a large corporation.  The old David and Goliath thing.  A little person can never take on a big corporation.  But a whole class of them can.  When represented by a tort lawyer.  Who liken themselves as heroes of the little guy.  Taking the big corporation on to make them pay for all the horrible things they’ve done to their clients.  But who do they really help?  Let’s say they win a judgment from a big corporation of $250,000,000.  That’s a lot of money.  From that sum they take their cut.  Let’s say 50%.  Leaving $125 million for the people the corporation wronged.  That’s a lot of money.  So the people won, too, right?  Not really.  For there are a lot of people represented in these class actions.  Let’s say 5 million in our example.  So if you divide the $125 million by 5 million that comes to $25 per person.  So, again, who did the lawyers really help?  The lawyers.  Which is why there are so many lawyer jokes.

In the Private Sector if you want to spend Half of your Life Retired you have to Pay for It

Lawyers vote Democrat.  Because they like being privileged people.  They don’t want the laws changing that allow them to get so rich when money exchanges hands.  Which is why they donate heavily to the Democrat Party.  And don’t donate to the Republicans.  Who complain about the high costs of frivolous lawsuits to businesses in an overly litigious society.  It’s so bad that a footnote in the financial statements of a corporation about a lawsuit is not that big of a deal.  Why?  Because so many corporations are sued that investors are more surprised to see one that isn’t being sued.  This is why Republicans want tort reform.  And pass ‘loser-pays’ into law.  Like many other countries have.  Where the loser in court pays for the attorney fees for the side that wins.  Which would greatly cut down on frivolous lawsuits.  And cut the costs businesses incur from these frivolous lawsuits that they pass on to their customers.  So the lawyers donate to Democrats.  To prevent any tort reform that would change the easy way lawyers have of getting rich.

It’s the world’s oldest profession.  Screwing people for money.  But lawyers aren’t the only ones seeking privilege.  There are a lot of others, too.  Interestingly, they, too, support the Democrat Party.  Such as the United Autoworkers.  They donate heavily to the Democrat Party to keep labor laws favorable to unions.  To make it more difficult for their nonunion competition.  And to use the power of government to force people to pay may for a union-made car.  Allowing their union members to live better lives than those outside of the UAW.  And when even that doesn’t allow General Motors to pay its bills when selling a record number of cars the UAW goes to government for a bailout of their woefully underfunded pension fund.  So their union members can continue to have a more generous retirement at an earlier age than those outside of the UAW.

Teacher unions seek privilege, too.  You hear a lot about how the teachers don’t earn that much.  But then again, they don’t work that much.  Getting 3 months off in the summer.  So you can’t compare their wages to people who don’t get the 3 summer months off.  But for teachers it’s not so much about the paycheck.  It’s the benefits.  Very generous health insurance coverage.  And pensions.  Which have gone the way of the dodo in the private sector.  Because people are just living too long into retirement.  When they first set up these pensions people were dying in their sixties.  The actuaries never saw people living into their eighties as common.  So in the private sector if you want to spend half of your life retired you have to pay for it.  And you work as long as necessary to fund the retirement you want.  The union pensions just can’t work these days as they once did.  Which is why teacher unions like the United Autoworkers and lawyers support the Democrat Party.  They want to keep their privileged lives.

The Wealth Transfers of the Welfare State give Democrats Money and Privilege

Of course privilege is nothing new to the Democrat Party.  They have long stood for privilege.  Even now.  As the Democrats provide themselves all kinds of exceptions from the Affordable Care Act.  For more expensive and lower quality health insurance is good for the masses.  But not for the privileged elite.  Or their special friends who support them so generously with campaign donations.  Congress has had a history of exempting themselves from the laws they pass for us.  It took the Republican winning of the House in the 1994 midterm elections to change that.  The first Republican-controlled House since 1952 required Congress to be held to the same laws as the rest of us.  A bitter pill for Democrats to swallow.  For their feelings of privilege go way back.

The Democrat Party can trace its pedigree back to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party.  The party of the slave-owning planter elite.  Who from day one fought for their privilege starting with the Three-Fifths Compromise.  To give them a greater say in the new national government than their voting population allowed.  The planter elite’s South turned into an Old World aristocracy.  With great manors for the landed aristocracy.  And vast lands worked by slaves.  Very similar to feudalism in the Old World.  And something they fought hard to keep.  Their privilege.  The Southern Democrats used the power of the national government (such as the Fugitive Slave Act) to interfere with state laws in the North.  To protect their feudalism by keeping slavery legal as long as they could while the north was industrializing and modernizing.  With paid laborers.  When they lost control of the House due to the growing population in the North they turned to war.  Saying that the national government was interfering with state laws in the South.  And getting poor southern farmers who owned no slaves to fight and die so the southern aristocracy could live on.

When the Southern Democrats lost the American Civil War they scrambled to maintain their privilege.  They unleashed a terror on the freed slaves and Republicans with the KKK.  The Democrats then wrote Jim Crowe Laws.  Separate but equal.  Government-enforced racial segregation.  During debate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Democrat and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK Robert Byrd filibustered for 14 hours.  To keep the South segregated.  With power and privilege in a new aristocracy.  Centered not on land but political power and cronyism.  Even becoming the party for blacks as ironic as that is.  Trading government programs for votes.  And destroying the black family in the process.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced black fathers with government.  And moved single mothers and their children into housing projects that became infested with drugs and crime.  But this large (and failed) welfare state transferred a lot of wealth to the Democrats.  Giving them money and privilege.   That they can use to maintain their power.  By taking care of those who take care of them.  Lawyers, the UAW, teacher unions and other privilege seekers.  For nothing has changed on the left.  They have been and always will be an aristocratic-thinking, privilege-seeking people who want to live better than the rest of us.  While we pay for their privileged lives.


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

FT213: “Rich liberals support a large welfare state to assuage their wealth guilt.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 14th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Rich People become Liberals so People don’t Shame them for their Obscene Wealth

Rich people love being rich.  They love their mansions.  Their expensive cars.  Eating at the finest restaurants.  Drinking the finest wine.  Going on lavish vacations.  Going to the best parties.  Hanging with the beautiful people.  And rich men especially like the sex with beautiful young women their wealth can make happen.  To quote the Eagles song Life in the Fast Lane rich people love having everything all of the time.

Some of the richest people in the United States are liberals.  Yes, those same people who argue for income and wealth equality.  Hollywood stars.  Televisions stars.  Authors.  And music stars.  Who are everything they stand against.  They’re part of that evil 1%.   And they live very ostentatious lives.  Their wealth is over the top.  Bling.  Cars.  Cars with bling.  Nothing but the best.  And then some.  This wealth is okay, though.  But those in the 1% other than them?  Government should raise their taxes to take as much of it away as possible.  And we should all shame them for daring to have such obscene wealth.

Of course, rich liberals like their obscene wealth.  They want to keep it.  And they want to continue their lavish lives.  But they don’t want people shaming them.  They want people to love them and adore them.  So they buy whatever they’re selling.  Movies, televisions shows, books or music.  They don’t want anyone shaming them for their obscene wealth.  So they do something very simple to avoid that shame.  They become public liberals.

Only those Businesses that Continually Please their Customers Succeed

Liberals can have the most obscene amounts of wealth without anyone shaming them for that obscene wealth.  Why?  Because they belong to the ‘right’ political party.  The one that argues against income and wealth inequality.  So they get a pass.  Which is why so many rich people are liberals.  They want to be left alone.  And their call for higher taxes on rich people?  Well, they’re so rich that they can hire the best accountants and tax attorneys to help them shield their wealth from the taxman.  There’s a reason why the tax code is so convoluted and not a simple flat tax like conservatives want.  To help rich liberals keep their money.

Then there are rich liberals who have too much of a conscious.  And they feel guilty for having obscene wealth.  But not guilty enough to give their wealth away.  These liberals are vehemently pro big government.  They want a massive welfare state.  To assuage their wealth guilt.  So they can continue to enjoy their obscene wealth.  Their 1% wealth.  Without having to feel guilty about it.  Such as, presumably, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart is a very well-read and intelligent man.  He knows a lot of stuff.  Unfortunately, though, he draws many wrong conclusions with that knowledge.  He favors big government.  And a vast welfare state to help those in need.  He trusts government while distrusting corporations and businesses.  Because, as he has said, we have no vote with corporations and businesses like we do with government.  Via elections.  But he’s wrong.  We do have a vote with all corporations and businesses.  The moment they stop treating their customers right those customers go to other corporations and businesses.  Most new businesses fail within 5 years.  And some big companies that have been around for years fail and go out of business.  Why?  Because their customers DO have a large vote in whether they succeed or not.  And only those businesses that continually please their customers succeed.  Something you just can’t say about government.  For no matter how much they anger the people little ever changes.

Not only is there Income and Wealth Inequality there’s also Income Tax Inequality

Fox News has been talking about people scamming the welfare state.  Highlighting a surfer dude in California as a typical welfare cheat.  Stewart lambasted Fox News for that.  Saying one person (or two or three, etc.) does not mean all people on welfare are gaming the system.  Although he uses that very logic to point at corporations caught in wrong-doing.  Saying they represent all corporations and businesses.  And he joins the choir about how rich corporations and rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes.  And how some of these rich corporations and rich people are hiding their income and wealth from the taxman.  Despite their paying the lion’s share of all taxes.

According to the National Taxpayer’s Union, when it comes to income taxes it’s rich people paying the most.  So not only is there income and wealth inequality.  There’s also income tax inequality.  Through recent years the top 1% of income earners has paid approximately a third of all income taxes.  The top 5% has paid more than half of all income taxes.  And the top 10% of income earners has paid about 70% of all income taxes.  While the bottom 50% of income earners, the people rich liberals want to help, pay about 3% (or less) of all income taxes.

You don’t have to raise tax rates on the wealthy.  They’re already paying a disproportionate share of all income taxes.  In fact, if you cut tax rates and cut business regulations to help rich business and rich people get even richer more tax revenue would flow into the treasury.  This would be a good thing.  Rich people getting richer.  And more people becoming rich.  This should be what everyone wants.  Based on the amount of taxes rich people pay.  So we should stop trying to help the less fortunate by raising taxes on the rich.  And creating more onerous regulations for businesses that benefit the less fortunate.  Like Obamacare.  For it hurts the profit incentive.  Which prevents rich people from getting richer and paying more income taxes.  As well as dissuades people from becoming business owners or expanding their businesses.  Which means fewer jobs.  Fewer hours in those jobs.  And the replacement of costly people with machines.  It’s because of these things that median family income has fallen under the Obama administration.  Which is the last thing any good liberal should want.  This is why rich liberals have got to stop supporting a large welfare state to assuage their wealth guilt.  It’s killing the middle class.  And destroying the jobs that could pull the less fortunate into the middle class.  And beyond.


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

FT212: “If liberals keep winning elections the United States will fall like the Roman Empire.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 7th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

The Roman Empire survived for about 1500 Years

The Roman Empire was one of the greatest empires of all time.  It lasted some 500 years in the West.  And another thousand years in the East.  Give or take.  As empires go they don’t come much bigger.  Or last longer.  The Romans ruled the world.  It stretched from Northern Africa to Britain.  And from Spain to the Middle East.  It was huge.

There have been bigger empires.  The British Empire.  The Mongol Empire.  The Russian Empire.  The Spanish Empire.  And others.  But none of them lasted as long as the 1500 years of the Roman Empire.  The British Empire lasted about 400 years.  The Mongol Empire lasted about 50 years.  The Russian Empire lasted about 200 years.  And the Spanish Empire lasted about 500 years.  Adolf Hitler said the Third Reich would last a thousand years.  But it lasted only 12.  Proving that empire building—and empire maintaining—are easier said than done.

Yet the Romans did it for 1500 years.  Give or take.  So they knew a thing or two about empire building.  And maintaining that empire.  Yet even this mighty empire fell.  Why?  Historians still debate this question today.  As do the laymen.  With a person’s political persuasion sometimes determining what they believe.

A Debased Coin and High Taxes made the Roman Citizenry very Unhappy

Empires are costly.  As Rome built her empire she paid for it by conquering new lands.  So as her borders pushed out treasure flowed back the other way to Rome.  Which paid for her massive military.  And her massive bureaucracy to govern that sprawling empire.  So the Roman people went about their business.  Shielded from the cost of empire.  Farming and taking their goods to market.  Safe within their empire.  For her enemies were outside the borders of the empire.  And those borders were pushed a very long way out.

But then something happened.  Those borders stopped moving.  They were not conquering new lands.  And there was no more treasure flowing back to Rome.  Which was a problem.  For the Roman Empire covered a lot of land that they had to govern.  And defend.  So the cost of the Roman Empire was never higher than when her borders stopped pushing out.  While her revenue to pay for that empire was never smaller.  So they had to do something.  And that something was taxes.  Lots of them.  All of a sudden the Roman citizenry was feeling the cost of their bloated bureaucratic state.  And the cost of that massive military that defended the frontier.

So taxes soared.  Making the Roman citizenry unhappy.  But the tax revenue proved to be insufficient.  So they started debasing their currency.  Adding more and more lead to their silver coins.  But not their gold coins.  For they used gold to pay the military and to pay the government bureaucrats.  So they only debased the silver coin.  The coin of the Roman citizenry.  Which, of course, resulted in inflation.  As the coins had less and less silver in them they bought less and less.  So prices soared.  As did taxes.  Making the Roman citizenry very unhappy.

The Cost of Mercenaries and the Roman Bureaucracy and Welfare State bankrupted the Roman Empire

So the Romans started building things to entertain the people.  And they grew a welfare state to help feed those who could not afford to buy food.  Public works and the new welfare state may have eased some of the animosity towards the state.  But it only increased the costs of the state.  Requiring higher taxes.  So high that people lost money on their farms and businesses.  So they quit.  Causing food and goods shortages.  So the Romans passed laws forcing them to stay in their jobs.  And forcing their children to do the same work their parents did.  Which eventually evolved into feudalism.

Eventually the Roman citizenry no longer wanted to serve the empire.  Leading to the use of mercenary armies.  Which were costly.  And only increased the cost of empire.  With the silver coin so debased the Roman government would not even accept it in payment of taxes.  So the government took a portion of the food grown and goods made.  Making it more difficult to pay for the welfare state (just imagine your employer paying you in food, toilet paper, soap, etc.).  And the mercenary armies guarding the frontier.  Which could prove troublesome.  As they had no loyalties to the Roman Empire.  They were just hired muscle.  Their blood loyalties were often to people on the other side of the border they were guarding.  Having come from those people.

So the massive cost of hired mercenaries and the massive cost of the Roman bureaucracy and welfare state basically bankrupted the Roman Empire.  Of course the American left prefers not to think about this.  As they are very fond of their large welfare state.  So some on the left often cite the decadence of the Roman Empire that caused her fall.  They talk about the feasts, the drink, the gladiators, the orgies and other acts of debauchery that caused a societal decay that eroded the empire from within.  Even while they are in the business of societal decay themselves.  Free birth control, abortion on demand, the decriminalization of marijuana, the rejection of virtue and morality, their extreme secularism to remove any vestige of restraint from their lives of excess, etc.  The kind of things a debauched Roman citizenry no doubt would have enjoyed.  So either way the Roman Empire fell because of principles the American left embraces.  Which means if liberals keep winning elections the United States will fall like the Roman Empire.


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

Henry Ford, Bill Hewlett & Dave Packard, Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak, Howard Schultz, Ray Kroc and Richard Branson

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 25th, 2014

 History 101

(Originally published May 8th, 2012)

Capitalism allows Entrepreneurs to bring their Great Ideas to Life

Entrepreneurs start with an idea.  Of how to do something better.  Or to create something we must have that we don’t yet know about.  They think.  They create.  They have boundless creative energies.  And the economic system that best taps that energy is capitalism.  The efficient use of capital.  Using capital to make profits.  And then using those profits to make capital.  So these ideas of genius that flicker in someone’s head can take root.  And grow.  Creating jobs.  And taxable economic activity.  Creating wealth for investors and workers.  Improving the general economy.  Pulling us out of recessions.  Improving our standard of living.  And making the world a better place.  Because of an idea.  That capitalism brought to life.

Entrepreneurs Risked Capital to bring Great Things to Market and to Create Jobs

Henry Ford established the Detroit Automobile Company in 1899.  Which failed.  He reorganized it into the Henry Ford Company in 1901.  Ford had a fight with his financial backers.  And quit.  Taking the Ford name with him.  And $900.  The Henry Ford Company was renamed Cadillac and went on to great success.  Ford tried again and partnered with Alexander Malcomson.  After running short of funds they reorganized and incorporated Ford Motor Company in 1903 with 12 investors.  The company was successful.  Some internal friction and an unexpected death of the president put Ford in charge.  Ford Motor built the Model A, the Model K and the Model S.  Then came the Model T.  And the moving assembly line.  Mass production greatly increased the number of cars he could build.  But it was monotonous work for the assembly line worker.  Turnover was high.  So to keep good workers he doubled pay in 1914 and reduced the 9-hour shift to 8 hours.  This increased productivity and lowered the cost per Model T.  Allowing those who built the cars to buy what they built.  In 2011 the Ford Motor Company employed approximately 164,000 people worldwide.

Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard established Hewlett-Packard (HP) in 1939.  In a garage.  They raised $538 in start-up capital.  In that garage they created their first successful commercial product.  A precision audio oscillator.  Used in electronic testing.  It was better and cheaper than the competition.  Walt Disney Productions bought this oscillator to certify Fantasound surround sound systems in theaters playing the Disney movie Fantasia.  From this garage HP grew and gave us calculators, desktop and laptop computers, inkjet and laser printers, all-in-one multifunction printer/scanner/faxes, digital cameras, etc.  In 2010 HP employed approximately 324,600 employees worldwide.  (Steve Wozniak was working for HP when he designed the Apple I.  Which he helped fund by selling his HP calculator.  Wozniak offered his design to HP.  They passed.)

Steve Jobs had an idea to sell a computer.  He convinced his friend since high school, Steve Wozniak, to join him.  They sold some of their things to raise some capital.  Jobs sold his Volkswagen van.  Wozniak sold his HP scientific calculator.  They raised about $1,300.  And formed Apple.  They created the Apple I home computer in 1976 in Steve Jobs’ garage.  From these humble beginnings Apple gave us the iPad, iPhone, iPod, iMac, MacBook, Mac Pro and iTunes.  In 2011 Apple had approximately 60,400 full time employees.

Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl, and Gordon Bowker opened the first Starbucks in 1971 in Seattle, Washington.  About 10 years later Howard Schultz drank his first cup of Starbucks coffee.  And he liked it.  Within a year he joined Starbucks.  Within another year while traveling in Italy he experienced the Italian coffeehouse.  He loved it.  And had an idea.  Bring the Italian coffeehouse to America.  A place to meet people in the community and converse.  Sort of like a bar.  Only where the people stayed sober.  Soon millions of people were enjoying these tasty and expensive coffee beverages at Starbucks throughout the world.  In 2011 Starbucks employed approximately 149,000 people.

Ray Kroc sold Prince Castle Multi-Mixer milk shakes mixers to a couple of brothers who owned a restaurant.  Who made hamburgers fast.  Richard and Maurice McDonald had implemented the Speedee Service System.  It was the dawn of fast food.  Kroc was impressed.  Facing tough competition in the mixer business he opened a McDonald’s franchise in 1955.  Bringing the grand total of McDonald’s restaurants to 9.  He would go on to buy out the McDonald brothers (some would say unscrupulously).  Today there are over 30,000 stores worldwide.  In 2010 McDonald’s employed approximately 400,000 people.

Richard Branson started a magazine at 16.  He then sold records out of a church crypt at discount prices.  The beginning of Virgin Records.  In 1971 he opened a record store.  He launched a record label in 1972.  And a recording studio.  Signing the Sex Pistols.  And Culture Club.  In 1984 he formed an airline.  Virgin Atlantic Airways.  In 1999 he went into the cellular phone business.  Virgin Mobile.  In 2004 he founded Virgin Galactic.  To enter the space tourism business.  His Virgin Group now totals some 400 companies.  And employs about 50,000 people.

The Decline of Capitalism and the Rise of the Welfare State caused the European Sovereign Debt Crisis

And we could go on.  For every big corporation out there will have a similar beginning.  Corporations that use capital efficiently.  Bringing great things to market.  Introducing us to new things.  Always making our lives better.  And more comfortable.  One thing you will not find is a great success story like this starting in the Soviet Union.  The People’s Republic of China (back in the days of Mao Zedong).  East Germany (before the Berlin Wall fell).  North Korea.  Or Cuba.  No.  The command economies of communist countries basically froze in time.  Where there was no innovation.  No ideas brought to life.  Because the government kind of frowned on that sort of thing.

There is a reason why the West won the Cold War.  And why we won that war without the Warsaw Pack and NATO forces fighting World War III.  And why was this?  Because we didn’t need to.  For the communist world simply could not withstand the forces of living well in the West.  Whenever they could their people escaped to the West.  To escape their nasty, short and brutish lives.  In the command economies of their communist states.  Where the state planners failed to provide for their people.  Even failing to feed their people.  The Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and North Korea all suffered population reducing famines.  But not in the West.  Where we are not only well fed.  But our poor suffer from obesity.  Which is not a good thing.  But it sure beats dying in a famine.

Sadly, though, the West is moving towards the state planning of their one time communist foes.  Social democracies are pushing nations in the European Union to bankruptcy.  Japan’s generous welfare state is about to implode as an aging population begins to retire.  Even in the United States there has been a growth of government into the private sector economy like never before.  Which is causing the Great Recession to linger on.  As it caused Japan’s lost decade to become two decades.  And counting.  As it is prolonging the European sovereign debt crisis.  With no end in sight.  The cause of all their problems?  The decline of capitalism.  And the rise of the welfare state.  Which just kills the entrepreneurial spirit.  And the creation of jobs.  Which is one cure for all that ails these countries.  And the only one.  For only robust economic activity can pull a country out of recession.  And for that you need new jobs.  And the entrepreneurial spirit.  In short, you need capitalism.


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

Guns, Butter and Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 24th, 2014

Economics 101

Democrats will cut Defense but not Entitlements because fewer People in Defense vote Democrat

A cornerstone of the Obama presidency is social justice.  Primarily through redistribution of wealth.  Raising taxes to fund a growing welfare state.  To help those not lucky enough to have won life’s lottery.  Such as expanding the food stamp program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).  Which has grown over 70% under President Obama.

Of course, this costs money.  A lot of it.  Added on top of an already costly welfare state.  Driven by entitlement spending.  Social Security.  And Medicare.  The biggest portions of federal spending.  And it only keeps growing.  Making the welfare state unsustainable without entitlement reform.  But the politicians won’t touch entitlements.  The third rail of politics.  Because they’re afraid of losing votes in the next election.  So they’d rather the country implode instead of reforming entitlements.  And hope that implosion comes after they’re dead and buried.  For as long as they get to enjoy their lives they could give a rat’s behind about future generations.

But they will touch defense spending.  And often do when they are looking for more money for the welfare state.  Even now.  The Obama administration is proposing spending cuts in defense spending.  That will shrink the size of the military.  And cut pay and benefits for some of the lowest paid people in the country.  The people who go in harm’s way for their country.  They won’t touch entitlement spending because it may hurt people that typically vote Democrat.  But they have no problem doing just that to those who wear a uniform to serve their country.  Who don’t always vote Democrat.  Just so they can have a generous welfare state like the European social democracies they so admire have.  Who can have them because they don’t have large defense budgets.  For the United States has been protecting them since World War II.

People can’t pay Taxes to fund a Welfare State without a Job that Provides an Income to Tax

If you watch television you’ve probably heard New York State’s commercials to attract new businesses to New York.  Where the state is promising that businesses will be “100% tax-free for 10 years.  No income tax, business, corporate, state or local taxes, sales and property taxes, or franchise fees.”  Which is a clear admission from the state with the second highest tax burden in the country that high taxes hurt business.

The tax burden is so great in New York that some businesses have moved their operations out of state.  And people with vacation homes in New York who only visit them a couple of weeks out of the year are selling them.  As the state is taxing their incomes as if they are permanent New York residents.  But despite these high taxes New York has suffered great budget deficits.

New York City is a Democrat city.  Their high taxes pay for a large welfare state.  A large public sector.  And the enormous costs of their public sector benefits.  In particular, health care and pension costs.  But their high tax rates have shrunk the tax base.  Because people can pack up and move out of state.  Just as businesses can.  Which is why they are doing a 180-degree turn on taxes.  In a desperate attempt to get businesses to come to New York.  For even if these businesses aren’t paying taxes their employees will.  Income taxes.  Sales taxes.  Property taxes.  Liquor taxes.  Cigarette taxes.  Etc.  None of which they can pay if there are no jobs to give them an income the state can tax.

The Number of Abortions is having a Direct Impact on the Economy and Tax Revenue

New York City released its SUMMARY OF VITAL STATISTICS 2012 THE CITY OF NEW YORK PREGNANCY OUTCOMES this month.  In it you can find why New York City, New York State and the federal government are having such a difficult time paying for their welfare states.  It’s because of liberal Democrat policies.  Not on the spending side of the equation.  But on the revenue side of the equation.

In 2012 there were 73,815 abortions.  Which are future taxpayers that weren’t allowed to be born.  That’s right, before anyone pays the high tax rates of a welfare state they have to be born first.  And when they are not born that’s future tax revenue the government cannot collect.  If we look at a 20 year period (about a generation) and assume 73,815 abortions each of those 20 years that’s 1,476,300 people that never will pay taxes.  If they earned on average $30,000 each that’s $44,289,000,000 of economic activity they never created.  And at a New York State tax rate of 11.7% that’s $5,181,813,000 in lost tax revenue for the state.

But it gets worse.  If you divide this number by two you get the total number of couples (a man and a woman) that could have started a family.  If each couple had 3 children this lost generation could have brought in another 2,214,450 taxpayers into New York City.  Adding them to their parent’s generation and assuming a median family income of $53,046 (an older generation established in their career earning more and a younger generation just starting their career earning less) brings the total lost economic activity for these two generations of possible New Yorkers to $195,779,524,500.  And lost tax revenue for the state of $22,906,204,367.  So the number of abortions is having a direct impact on the economy.  And tax revenue.  Making it necessary to cut guns to pay for more butter.  Whereas if these taxpayers were born we could have both our guns and butter.  And live in a world made safe by the most powerful military in the world.  Peace through strength.  The Ronald Reagan way.  And not a world where our enemies are constantly testing our resolve.  The Jimmy Carter and President Obama way.


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

Anchor/Passport Babies proof that People wished Britain/America had conquered the World

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 8th, 2014

Week in Review

The problem with a generous welfare state and porous borders is that they attract a lot of foreign-born people to your country to cash in on those generous welfare benefits.  Some even make the journey while pregnant so their child is born in the country with the generous welfare benefits.  And not the cruel, cold-hearted benefit-free country they are escaping.  Giving them an ‘anchor’ in the country they’d much rather live in than the country they don’t want to live in.  Their native country.

The United States has a porous border with Mexico.  And many Mexicans give birth in the United States while in the country illegally just so their child doesn’t have to grow up in Mexico.  Which when you think about is a statement on how these Mexicans feel about the ‘imperial’ United States.  They must really hate them for not taking the rest of Mexico when they won the Mexican War.  Had the Americans done so there would be no need for anchor babies.  For they would already be enjoying American citizenship south of the Rio Grande.  Based on the number of Mexicans entering America illegally, at least.

The United States isn’t the only country people want to live in.  Canada, too, is a beautiful country with a generous welfare state.  The winters are a little colder, though.  But that doesn’t stop people from trying to become Canadian citizens with anchor babies.  Only they call them ‘passport babies’ in Canada (see Canadian citizenship bill to be tabled Thursday by Susana Mas posted 2/2/2014 on CBC News).

Alexander said the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act would also aim to reduce the current backlog of applications and change the conditions for eligibility.

The government is also considering changes to tackle the problem of so-called “birth tourism” or “passport babies,” but Alexander told CBC News they would not be included in this bill.

Americans and Canadians aren’t better people.  They just live in countries that allow their people to be better.  Which is the problem in Mexico.  Not the people.  As the Americas were colonized Britain was further along in representative government than Spain.  Free market capitalism replaced mercantilism quicker in British America than it did in Spanish America.  And democratic institutions were more developed in British America than they were in Spanish America.  Such that the foundation for representative government, free market capitalism and democracy was more robust in British American than it was in Spanish America.

Because of this when the Americans gained their independence great peace and prosperity followed.  A first following a civil war.  Allowing America and Canada (later granted their independence from the British Empire) to be lands of opportunity.  With strong human rights.  Ironically, in large part to the School of Salamanca.  One of the greatest gifts Spain gave to the world.  Which is why people want to have their babies born in these countries.  So they can be as great as they want to be.  Because only representative government, free market capitalism and democracy can make this possible.  At least based on history.

But you can’t have people entering your country unchecked.  Especially if they’re coming for the benefits.  And your country has annual deficits and a growing national debt.  For adding more people to the benefits roll when you can’t afford it will transform the country from that land of opportunity people want to come to into the country they are fleeing.  Countries with high spending and devalued currencies that lead to black markets and lawlessness.  The very things people want to get away from by having their babies in the United States and Canada.


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

President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 30th, 2014

Politics 101

Democrats offered Enthusiastic Applause for Unsound Policy Proposals that have no Basis in Reality

President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address was a little longer than an hour.  But if you didn’t look at a clock it felt a lot longer.  For it was the same tripe you hear all the time from this administration.  And the political left.  It was full of misleading statements.  Inaccurate facts and figures.  And some lies.  The usual stuff you expect from the liberal left.  But what was really disturbing was the enthusiastic applause for some really unsound policy proposals that have no basis in reality.  Showing either how clueless these enthusiastic Democrats are about economics, business, national security, etc.  Or how amoral they are in their quest for power.  As they judge and implement policy not by how it will improve the lives of Americans.  But how it will improve their lives in government.

Some Big Reasons why Businesses export Jobs are Taxes, Regulations and Labor Costs

If there was ever an example of what people not to have in power this state of the union theater was it.  Following are excerpts from President Obama’s speech (see FULL TRANSCRIPT: Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address posted 1/28/2014 on The Washington Post).  Comments and analysis follow each excerpt.

And here are the results of your efforts: the lowest unemployment rate in over five years; a rebounding housing market — (applause) — a manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s — (applause) — more oil produced — more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world, the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years — (applause) — our deficits cut by more than half; and for the first time — (applause) — for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is.

The total number of people who left the civilian labor force since President Obama took office is 11,301,000 (see The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013 posted 1/13/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  Which means the unemployment rate is meaningless.  The only reason why it’s falling is that the BLS doesn’t count unemployed people who gave up looking for jobs that just aren’t there.  Oil production on private land may be up.  While overall oil consumption is down because of the Great Recession that just won’t end.  Which is helping to keep gas prices down.  Unemployed people just don’t have the money to buy gas.  So they don’t.  Greatly reducing the demand for gas.  Thus reducing gas prices and oil imports.  George W. Bush’s last deficit was $498.37 billion.  President Obama’s first deficit was $1,539.22 billion.  And it was over $1 trillion in 2010, 2011 and 2012.  It fell to $680 billion in 2013 thanks to the sequester.  But the deficit is larger now than when President Obama assumed office.  The only reduction in the deficit is a reduction in the amount he increased it.

Now, as president, I’m committed to making Washington work better, and rebuilding the trust of the people who sent us here.

Really?  You’re committed to rebuilding the trust of the people?  Mr. “If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance.  Period.”  Otherwise known as the lie of the year.  You’re going to rebuild the trust of the people?  Good luck with that.  What with your pants on fire and all.

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all.

Well, finally something Republicans can agree with the president about.  Yes, his economic policies have benefitted Wall Street.  While hurting Main Street.  Finally some bipartisan agreement.

So let’s make that decision easier for more companies. Both Democrats and Republicans have argued that our tax code is riddled with wasteful, complicated loopholes that punish businesses investing here, and reward companies that keep profits abroad. Let’s flip that equation. Let’s work together to close those loopholes, end those incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lower tax rates for businesses that create jobs right here at home. (Cheers, applause.)

There are only a few reasons why businesses export jobs.  And the big three are taxes, regulations and labor costs.  The Obama administration wants to raise taxes.  They’ve increased regulatory costs.  And they support costly union labor.  So everything they stand for encourages businesses to export jobs.

But — but I’ll act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. (Applause.)

So how’s that approval for the Keystone XL pipeline coming along?  That thing you’ve been studying since 2010?  Which by the laws of arithmetic is approximately 4 years ago.  Is this slashing bureaucracy and streamlining the permitting process?  At this rate it would probably be quicker to elect a Republican president in 2016.  You know, someone who, when it comes to economic activity, walks it while the Democrats only talk it.

We also have the chance, right now, to beat other countries in the race for the next wave of high-tech manufacturing jobs. And my administration’s launched two hubs for high-tech manufacturing in Raleigh, North Carolina, and Youngstown, Ohio, where we’ve connected businesses to research universities that can help America lead the world in advanced technologies.

Universities are in the grant business.  They want as many grants as they can get to help bring money into the university.  And to do so they will study anything the government wants them to.  No matter how wasteful it is.  While some of the biggest high-tech companies started in garages.  Apple, Google, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft.  To name a few.  Yes, there is a lot of university-driven research.  But the big innovation is more entrepreneurial.  Created by people thinking up new stuff no one thought of yet.  Which is the last thing you want government involved in.  That same government that can’t build a website using 1990s technology.

Let’s do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America. Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other. And when 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped “Made in the USA.” (Applause.)

You want to help entrepreneurs and small business?  Get rid of Obamacare.  And slash tax rates.  This will provide incentive.  And allow them to reinvest more of their earnings to grow their business.  Allowing them to create those jobs.

Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The “all the above” energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades. (Applause.)

‘All of the above’ as long as it isn’t coal, oil or nuclear.  But if it’s solar power and wind power they are committed to giving more tax dollars to their friends and bundlers in the green energy industry.

Meanwhile, my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and jobs growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities. And while we’re at it, I’ll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations. (Applause.)

You can’t sustain production and jobs growth by strengthening protection of our air, water and pristine federal lands.  That’s just more regulatory costs.  And raising energy costs by not allowing any oil or natural gas production on those pristine federal lands.  Raising energy costs by restricting supply.  Which raises business costs.  In addition to those new regulatory costs.

Every four minutes another American home or business goes solar, every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job can’t be outsourced. Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it so we can invest more in fuels of the future that do. (Cheers, applause.)

That says it all.  Fossil fuels don’t need subsidies because their costs are affordable.  While solar (and wind power) are so costly that they are unaffordable.  Unless government heavily subsidizes them.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.) And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did. (Cheers, applause.)

There is no such thing as settled science.  Only science that has yet to be disproved.  Besides, once upon a time glaciers stretched down from the poles to near the equator.  And then receded back to where they are now.  All without any manmade carbon in the atmosphere to warm the planet.  As we were still simple hunter and gatherers then.  So if the glaciers moved more before there was manmade global warming they’ll move again regardless of what man is doing to warm the planet.

Finally, if we’re serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, law enforcement — and fix our broken immigration system. (Cheers, applause.) Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted, and I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades. And for good reason: When people come here to fulfill their dreams — to study, invent, contribute to our culture — they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everybody. So let’s get immigration reform done this year. (Cheers, applause.) Let’s get it done. It’s time.

Funny how that argument doesn’t apply to birth control and abortion.  The reason we need to “fix our broken immigration system.”  For if we were having babies at the rate when government created the welfare state we could pay for that welfare state today.  But thanks to the Sixties, birth control, abortion and feminism women stopped having babies.  Which is fine if a woman doesn’t want to.  But the progressives designed the welfare state based on them being baby machines.  Creating a greater number of taxpayers with each generation.  So more people pay into the welfare state than collect from it.  The way it must be for a Ponzi scheme to work.

That’s why I’ve been asking CEOs to give more long-term unemployed workers a fair shot at new jobs, a new chance to support their families. And in fact, this week many will come to the White House to make that commitment real.

When you raise the cost of labor (union labor, Obamacare, etc.) businesses tend to look at automating production instead of hiring that costly labor.  They may not be able to do anything about the higher regulatory costs but they can do something about higher labor costs.  Use more machines than people.  If you want CEOs to create new jobs stop making labor so costly.  And you can start with getting rid of Obamacare.

Of course, it’s not enough to train today’s workforce. We also have to prepare tomorrow’s workforce, by guaranteeing every child access to a world-class education. (Applause.)…

Five years ago we set out to change the odds for all our kids. We worked with lenders to reform student loans, and today more young people are earning college degrees than ever before. Race to the Top, with the help of governors from both parties, has helped states raise expectations and performance. Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C., are making big strides in preparing students with the skills for the new economy — problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, math.

Yes, more kids are going to college than ever before.  But they’re going there to have fun.  And to facilitate their fun many are getting easy, worthless degrees in the social sciences and humanities.  Costly degrees that universities sold them promising them future riches.  Enriching the university.  While impoverishing their graduates.  For a high-tech company has no use for these degrees.  Which is why a lot of these people end up in jobs they didn’t need that costly degree to do.  And our high-tech companies are using the visa program to get foreigners who have the skills they want.  Problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering and math.

It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test. But it is worth it — and it is working.

If you want kids to do better we need to champion marriage and family more.  And they should embrace religion a little more.  Instead of encouraging our young women to use birth control and abortion to avoid marriage and family.  And pulling every last vestige of religion from our lives.  Kids growing up in a household with a mother and a father who go to church do far better on average than kids growing up in a single-parent household and don’t go to church (see Strong families steeped in Conservative Values and Traditions do Well in America posted 1/11/2014 on PITHOCRATES).

Research shows that one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life is high-quality early education. (Applause.) Last year, I asked this Congress to help states make high-quality pre-K available to every 4-year-old. And as a parent as well as a president, I repeat that request tonight.

Actually, research doesn’t show that.  Yet they keep saying that.  For it’s like that line in the musical Evita, “Get them while they’re young, Evita.  Get them while they’re young.”  The sooner they can take them away from their parents the sooner they can start turning them into Democrat voters.  Such as teaching them to blame their parents for the manmade global warming that is killing the polar bears as they have no ice to rest on while eating their baby seals.

You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.

Women deserve equal pay for equal work. (Cheers, applause.)

Actually, it’s closer to 91 cents (see The White House’s use of data on the gender wage gap by Glenn Kessler posted 6/5/2012 on The Washington Post).  And the small difference is not due to discrimination but personal choice.  When you look at aggregate wages women will make less than men.  Because more women are teachers (with 3 month off without pay) than men are.  Some women work fewer hours at work to spend more time with their children. While men tend to work more overtime.  Men also work the more dangerous and higher paying jobs.  And are more likely to belong to a union.  When you compare childless, single men and women with a college degree some women are actually earning more than men.  Figures don’t lie but liars figure.  And for the contortions the Obama administration did here The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker gave the president one Pinocchio.

Now, women hold a majority of lower-wage jobs, but they’re not the only ones stifled by stagnant wages. Americans understand that some people will earn more money than others, and we don’t resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success. That’s what America’s all about. But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. (Applause.)

In the year since I asked this Congress to raise the minimum wage, five states have passed laws to raise theirs.

You’re not going to have a lot of upward mobility when you pay people more to remain in the jobs they hate.  All the talk about making college more affordable and bringing employers and community colleges together to help give people the skills they need to fill the jobs employers have is all for nothing if they just pay people more for doing an entry-level job.

Let’s do more to help Americans save for retirement. Today most workers don’t have a pension. A Social Security check often isn’t enough on its own. And while the stock market has doubled over the last five years, that doesn’t help folks who don’t have 401(k)s. That’s why tomorrow I will direct the Treasury to create a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings: MyRA. It’s a — it’s a new savings bond that encourages folks to build a nest egg.

Once upon a time people opened a savings account at their local bank and they saved to buy a house.  And they saved for their retirement.  That’s how people saved when they didn’t have a pension or a 401(k).  They can’t do that today because of the Federal Reserve destroying the banking industry by keeping interest rates at zero.  If the Fed stopped printing money and let investment capital come from our savings like they did before the Keynesians gave us the Federal Reserve people would be saving like we once did.  And we’d stop having Great Depressions, stagflation and Great Recessions.  Created by their prolonging the growth side of the business cycle.  Which raises prices higher than they normally would go.  Making the contraction side of the business cycle that much more painful.  As those prices have a much longer way to fall than they normally would.  Thanks to the Fed’s meddling with interest rates.

MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in. And if this Congress wants to help, work with me to fix an upside-down tax code that gives big tax breaks to help the wealthy save, but does little or nothing for middle-class Americans, offer every American access to an automatic IRA on the job, so they can save at work just like everybody in this chamber can.

You know why they want these MyRAs?  Because they can’t stand people saving money.  They love Social Security.  Because they can borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund.  Which is what they will do with these MyRAs.  They will take this money and spend it.  Filling the MyRA Trust Fund with a bunch of IOUs.  Just like they do with the Social Security Trust Fund.  And then provide a retirement benefit like Social Security.  That is too small to live on.  Whereas if we saved the money ourselves our retirement nest-egg will be much larger.  And it will provide for our retirement.  Unlike Social Security.

And since the most important investment many families make is their home, send me legislation that protects taxpayers from footing the bill for a housing crisis ever again, and keeps the dream of homeownership alive for future generations. (Applause.)

It was Bill Clinton that set the stage for the subprime mortgage crisis with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending (see Bill Clinton created the subprime mortgage crisis with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending posted 11/6/2011 on PITHOCRATES).  Using the heavy hand of government to get lenders to qualify the unqualified.  Then the Fed’s artificially low interest rates were the bait for the trap.  Enticing people to borrow huge sums of money because those interest rates were just too good to pass up.  Even if they weren’t planning to buy a house to begin with. The subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting Great Recession were government made.  If we want to prevent the taxpayers from footing the bill for another housing crisis we need to get the Keynesians out of government.

Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 3 million Americans under age 26 have gained coverage under their parents’ plans. (Applause.)

More than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage — 9 million. (Applause.)

The Washington Post gave this lie three Pinocchios (see Warning: Ignore claims that 3.9 million people signed up for Medicaid because of Obamacare by Glenn Kessler posted 1/16/2014 on The Washington Post).  For they’re counting some 3.9 million who would have signed up anyway for Medicaid regardless of the Affordable Care Act.  Also, the government was counting people who put a health care plan into their shopping cart as if they signed up for it.  Which many couldn’t.  As they haven’t programmed the back end of the health care website yet to actually accept payment or to pass that information on to the insurers.

And here’s another number: zero. Because of this law, no American, none, zero, can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a pre-existing condition like asthma or back pain or cancer. (Cheers, applause.) No woman can ever be charged more just because she’s a woman. (Cheers, applause.) And we did all this while adding years to Medicare’s finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors.

That’s right.  Women with reproductive systems that men don’t have won’t pay more for their health insurance than men pay for theirs.  How can they do that?  Simple.  They just are charging men more.  To cover the cost of a reproductive system they don’t have.

Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say “we are not afraid,” and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters and our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook. (Applause.)

If you take away guns from law-abiding gun owners that won’t keep dangerous people with mental health issues that want to harm people out of our movie theaters, our shopping malls or schools like Sandy Hook.  For there are other ways to harm people.  Just look at the Boston Marathon bombers.  The people he’s talking about not only had mental health issues but they were also smart.  Many were even college students.  Who probably could think of other ways to hurt people.  And you just can’t take away everything they might use to harm people.  But you can place these people somewhere where they can’t harm anyone.

You see, in a world of complex threats, our security, our leadership depends on all elements of our power — including strong and principled diplomacy. American diplomacy has rallied more than 50 countries to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands, and allowed us to reduce our own reliance on Cold War stockpiles.

Since President Obama assumed office he did nothing to support the Green Revolution in Iran.  Which kept the hard-line Islamists in power there.  He gave Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood by telling Hosni Mubarak that he had to go.  Removing the stable anchor of the Middle East.  And moved Egypt closer to Iran.  (The Egyptian people eventually rose up to overthrow the oppressive Muslim Brotherhood).  He went to war in Libya and helped to overthrow Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.  Who at the time was a quasi ally in the War on Terror.  After the Iraq invasion frightened him into believing he may be next.  President Obama was thanked for his Libyan war by al Qaeda with 4 dead Americans in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.  He waited too long to act in the Syrian civil war.  Which only brought al Qaeda into the conflict.  He failed to attain a status of forces agreement in Iraq.  So he pulled all U.S. forces out of Iraq which has only invited al Qaeda in.  And it looks like this will be repeated in Afghanistan.  He blamed George W. Bush’s wars as recruitment tools for al Qaeda.  While his extensive drone use is doing the same thing.  Especially in Yemen.  The hotbed of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  All that his diplomacy and leadership has done was to make the world a more dangerous place.

American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve — a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear.

His diplomacy with Bashar al-Assad in Syria only gave his oppressive regime legitimacy in the civil war he was raging against his people.  Making it easier for Assad to kill Syrians with conventional arms while he gives up a token amount of his chemical weapons.  While also making Russia who brokered the deal the dominate player in the region.

And it is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program — and rolled back parts of that program — for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium.

It’s not installing advanced centrifuges. Unprecedented inspections help the world verify every day that Iran is not building a bomb. And with our allies and partners, we’re engaged in negotiations to see if we can peacefully achieve a goal we all share: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

All Iran is doing is pausing their program.  And chemically altering some of their enriched uranium to meet the requirements of this diplomatic deal.  But this chemical process is reversible.  And they will reverse it once they get what they want.  This deal makes the world no safer.  If anything it makes it more dangerous.  For it does not diminish the Iranian nuclear program in the least.  But gives them more time to work on it as they prop up their regime with much needed supplies thanks to a relaxation of the sanctions against them.

These negotiations will be difficult; they may not succeed. We are clear-eyed about Iran’s support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which threaten our allies; and we’re clear about the mistrust between our nations, mistrust that cannot be wished away. But these negotiations don’t rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today. (Applause.)

The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. (Applause.) For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

The Soviet Union never attacked U.S. soil.  And there was a reason they didn’t.  They were rational.  And knew they would lose a great deal in a war with America.  Especially a nuclear one.  Which is why they never used their nuclear weapons.  But Iran giving a nuclear weapon to a shadowy group that is not a state?  With little to lose in using a nuclear weapon?  If it’s not a nuclear missile there will be no way in knowing where the nuclear bomb came from.  We can have our suspicions that Iran made it and gave it to someone.  But do we nuke Iran over that?  What if there are more nukes in the hands of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, etc.?  You could nuke Iran back to the Stone Age but it won’t stop those others being used.  The president insists this will not happen as Iran signed an agreement.  The only problem with that is the Iranians are liars.  And they call the United States the Great Satan.   These two facts suggest that replacing those sanctions with a promise not to build nuclear bombs was probably not a wise trade.

But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress: to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice and fairness and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders are made real for every citizen.

Use our collective shoulder to expand individual achievement?  The president believes in the former more than the latter.  He didn’t help the Iranians get free from tyranny when he had the chance.  And he turned the Egyptian people over to tyranny.  The Muslim Brotherhood.  Who were oppressing women and Christians.  Fairness and equality under the law?  Ask those Tea Party groups who were targeted by the IRS about fairness and equality under the law.  The Constitution?  That document of negative rights?  The left hates it.  And insists it’s a living document that can evolve over time to suit the needs of an expanding government.  So they can do exactly what the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to prevent from happening.

The Left endorses Unsound Policy Proposals with no Basis in Reality to improve their Chances of Winning Elections

The country is more conservative than liberal (see Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013 by Jeffrey M. Jones posted 1/10/2014 on Gallup).  Which is why liberals want state-funded pre-K to start indoctrinating our children as soon as possible.  To get them away from their parents so they can begin the process of turning them into Democrat voters.  It’s why kids are getting worthless social science and humanities degrees.  To further indoctrinate them.  Because their views are minority views.  So they need to play loose with the facts.  And lie.  Which is easier to do with indoctrinated kids than educated adults.  You’ll even hear Democrats talk about lowering the voting age.  To get a few more years of voting out of these kids before they grow old and wise.  And begin voting conservative.  So they do what they can to dumb down education.  Lie.  Cheat.  And buy as many votes as they can by giving away free stuff.  And the thing they really want to give away is citizenship for illegal aliens.  Who they are sure will be forever grateful.  And show it by voting Democrat.

This explains the enthusiastic applause for unsound policy proposals that have no basis in reality.  For the left is not interested in improving the lives of Americans.  They just want to improve their chances of winning elections.


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

Abortion and Tax Revenue

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 27th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published January 21st, 2013)

The Population Growth Rate fell during the Sixties and Seventies from 19% to 11% due to Birth Control and Abortion

Taxpayers are born.  Yes, immigration helped populate America.  But it was really the children of immigrants that made the country grow.  For a large population having babies will increase the population far more than immigration can.  Why?  Where do immigrants come from?  Babies.  Having babies is like compounding interest.  For babies grow up and have babies of their own.  So babies are good.  Especially for a government that wants to spend money.  Because the more babies we have the more taxpayers we will have.  So high-spending governments need a growing population growth rate.  To provide ever more taxpayers.  Who provide ever more tax revenue.  But sometimes the population growth rate doesn’t always increase.  Sometimes it even falls.  (See Population, Housing Units, Area Measurements, and Density: 1790 to 1990.  The population numbers are from the decennial census numbers.  The population growth rate is the percentage of population growth from one decade to the next.)

Although the population has always grown the population growth rate has not always grown.  In fact, the rate of growth has been falling over time.  Taking steep declines during war.  During the American Civil War the growth rate fell from 36% down to 23% by the time of the next census.  The census before and after World War I saw a decline from 21% to 15%.  The rate plummeted from 16% to 7% before and after the Great Depression.  With so many people out of work and struggling to survive the last thing families needed was another baby to feed.  The rate actually increased during World War II.  But that had more to do with people not having babies during the Great Depression for economic reasons.  After World War II the rate rose to 14%.  Which was still a point less than after World War I.

The following table shows the decrease in population due to war.  (Raw numbers are pulled from United States military casualties of war.)

Note that the most devastating of American wars was the American Civil War.  Where approximately 2% of the population died.  In terms of percentage loss of population the next costliest war was the Revolutionary War.  Then World War II.  Then World War I.  These wars saw millions of men in uniform (except for the Revolutionary War).  Away from their wives for years.  Which put a crimp in baby making.  And the large number of wounded and dead compounded that problem.  Resulting in large dips in the population growth rate during these wars.  Despite the large loss of life in numbers of America’s other wars those losses were all less than 0.10% of the population.  Making the impact on the population growth rate negligible.  One thing these numbers don’t explain, though, is the decline in the population growth rate after 1960.  During the Sixties and the Seventies the growth rate fell from 19% down to 11%.    But it wasn’t the Vietnam War that caused that decline.  So what did?  Birth control.  And abortion.

Couples having only 2 Children can’t Support an Expanding Welfare State but Couples having 3 Children Can

The U.S. approved the sale of the birth control pill in 1960.  Which corresponded with the era of free love and the sexual revolution.  People were having more sex.  While having fewer babies.  Then Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973.  Since then there have been on average about 1.4 million abortions a year.  Dwarfing the 156,250 killed a year in America’s most devastating war.  The American Civil War.  Which has brought the population growth rate to its smallest numbers that weren’t due to war or depression.  Because of that compounding nature of babies (growing up to have babies of their own).  And because babies become taxpayers this has a big impact on future tax revenue.  We can see this by looking at how 100 abortions ripple through the population.

Let’s assume those 100 abortions happen in Year 1 (Y1).  Had these abortions not happened these babies would have grown up and entered the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+20).  And split off into pairs to have babies of their own.  (If each couple has one baby they have a total of 50 babies.  If each couple has two babies they have a total of 100 babies.  Etc.)  Who would grow up and enter the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+40).  And so on.  The above graph adds up all the people for each 20-year period produced by the Y1 babies (children, grandchildren, great grand children, etc.) divided by 100 (those original babies not aborted).

If the Y1 people only have one baby they and their descendants disappear from the world in about 2 centuries.  If they have 2 children the population never grows larger than 4 times the original Y1 people.  Two children to replace two parents.  It’s not until you get to three children that you see an increase in population.  As well as an increase in tax revenue.

Assume each of the people, or taxpayers, at 20-year intervals earn a median income of $50,000.  They pay an effective federal income tax rate of 18%.  In addition to 12.4% for Social Security taxes (both employer and employee).  And 2.9% for Medicare.  Added together they total 33.3%.  This tax rate on total income at each 20-year interval produces the tax revenue in the above graph.  Note the revenue graphs are the same shape as the population graphs.  Showing a direct correlation between tax revenue and the population growth rate.  The tax revenue provided by couples having only one child disappears within two centuries.  Revenue provided by couples having only two children peaks out at $6,660,000.  As couples only have enough children to replace themselves.  Maintaining a constant of 4 taxpayers (2 parents and 2 children) after 80 years.  Showing that couples having 2, 1 or 0 children cannot support an expanding welfare state.  But a couple having 3 children can.  As long as it’s not too big of a welfare state.

You just can’t have an Expanding Welfare State with a Falling Population Growth Rate

The more children a couple has the greater the tax revenue.  For the more children they have the more people enter the workforce and become taxpayers.  If 50 couples have 3 kids each (as do their descendants) they will add $30.4 million in federal tax revenue in one century.  If they have 4 kids they will add $99.9 million in revenue.  If they have 5 kids they will add $264 million.  And if they have 6 kids they will add $599.4 million.

In two centuries these numbers are even more profound.  Couples having 4 kids will provide $3.2 billion in federal tax revenue.  While couples having 5 kids will provide $25.8 billion.  And couples having 6 kids will provide $145.6 billion.  If, that is, 100 pregnancies weren’t aborted 2 centuries earlier.

In the long-term revenue would soar if people simply started having babies again.  For birth control and abortion have greatly reduced the number of babies we’re having.  Causing tax revenue to fall.  We can bring revenue back up by having more babies.  But after some 30 years this baby dearth has pushed us into the flat part of these graphs.  Requiring up to a century or more to make large population gains.  And large gains in tax revenue.   And without these gains in revenue we simply cannot afford an expanding welfare state.

It is rather ironic that two tenets of liberalism clash here.  Liberals believe in both a welfare state.  And free birth control and abortion on demand.  They believe in one thing that requires women to have a lot of babies.  And another that helps women to have as few babies as possible.  Which is another reason liberalism will ultimately fail.  Paradoxes like this.  For you just can’t have an expanding welfare state with a falling population growth rate.  If you try you get trillion dollar deficits.  And $16.4 trillion in accumulated debt.


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

Abortion is Good in the United States but Bad in China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Advanced economies with expansive welfare states are incurring large budget deficits and growing national debt.  Why?  Because of birth control.  And abortion.

These massive welfare states were implemented before the Sixties.  When people were having more babies than they are now.  Following World War II there was a baby boom.  Following the baby boom, though, there was a baby bust.  Fast forward to today and a lot of those baby boomers are leaving the workforce and collecting taxpayer-financed benefits in retirement.  While the smaller baby bust generation is paying the taxes for those benefits.  Resulting in less money going into the welfare state than is going out in benefits.  Giving those deficits.  And that growing national debt.

A declining birthrate is the death knell of a welfare state.  So if you want a healthy welfare state you need people to have more babies.  So each generation is bigger than the one before it.  So there is always more money going into the welfare state than is going out.  Allowing the state to pay for those generous benefits without going bankrupt.

So birth control and abortion can bankrupt advanced economies with generous welfare states.  But abortion can do something else (see One-Child Policy Is One Big Problem for China by Susan Scutti posted 1/23/2014 on Newsweek).

Late last year, China’s National People’s Congress eased the one-child policy. The government didn’t exactly admit it was a mistake; according to Chinese officials, the guidelines helped avert 400 million births and in so doing, accelerated modernization…

Enforcement of the one-child policy during the early 1980s was controversial not only in China but around the globe. Early stories emerging from the rural villages focused on coercive practices, including forced late-term abortions and involuntary sterilization, as well as the “neighborly” snitching on pregnant couples who dared to conceive a second child…

…In China, there are currently 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls.

Medical advancements and technology have played a key role in creating this surplus of boys. “The Chinese government contracted with GE to provide cart-mounted ultrasound that could be run on generators so that the most obscure village had access to fetal sex determination,” said Hudson. Given the ability to know the sex of their unborn children, many parents aborted female fetuses…

It appears that the outraged cries from within and without have been heard. The Chinese government has spent millions of dollars in recent years to fund research into the implications of this radical skew in gender population numbers.

Having more men than women has led to a lot of single men who want to marry but can’t.  As there are not enough women to match up with men.  Which has caused a lot of these men to turn to prostitutes.  Something human traffickers are more than happy to supply them with.  Sending women there from neighboring countries to work in the sex industry.

The world is outraged over the number of aborted female fetuses in China.  Including the American left.  Yet they have no problem with abortion.  Aborting female fetuses is wrong.  But aborting male AND female fetuses is fine.  Apparently.  As abortion is sacred to those on the left.  Just mention that you want to revisit Roe v. Wade and see them go apoplectic.  For that is settled law.  And anyone who wants to take away a woman’s right to have an abortion is waging a war on women.  While in China abortion itself is the war on women.  So on the one hand abortion is the great liberator of women (outside of China).  While on the other hand it is the great exterminator of women (inside of China).  So it’s both good and bad.  When you use the imaginary logic of liberals, that is.


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

« Previous Entries