Resurrect Capitalism!

January 31, 2009

Arctic Birds vs. Global Warming Alarmists

Filed under: global warming — Tags: — admin @ 1:57 am

Global warming alarmists tell us that we are on the verge of causing a catastrophic planetary meltdown with our CO2 emissions.  But arctic birds say the opposite.

ivory_gull2snowy_owl1the ivory gull and snowy owl have been moving on down south

It seems that arctic birds are finding southern latitudes to be more to their liking these days.  Until this week, a mature ivory gull has not been seen in Massachusetts for well over a century:

Ivory gulls normally stay well above Newfoundland, living on Artic ice where they follow whales and polar bears to feed on the scraps and carcasses they leave behind after making a kill.  Until this year, the last report of a fully mature ivory gull in Massachusetts was in the 1800s.

Similarly, the snowy owl has taken to moving down south.  It normally resides in Canada or the northern US but this year in some time that it has been spotted in latitudes as low as Tennessee, Kansas, and Missouri.

In Tennessee, birders armed with spotting scopes and telephoto lenses scrambled from as far away as Georgia and Alabama to see the first snowy owl reported in that state in 22 years.

To be fair, these anecdotes do not prove that we are not warming the climate with CO2 emissions (that is, the “unforced” temperature might have been colder still without all our CO2 emissions, but we can never know if true or by how much).  These anecdotes do however prove that arctic birds are finding increasingly southern latitudes to be more hospitable than they have been in the past.

In an argument between climate change doomers who have incentives to have their alarmism taken seriously and arctic birds who have incentives to live in climates where they can best survive I’m going with the birds.

January 30, 2009

Politicians Are Disconnected From Reality

Filed under: economics, politics — Tags: , — admin @ 8:04 pm

I’m opposed to bailouts on the general principle that our government can’t directly stimulate economic growth.  It can indirectly stimulate growth via tax cuts and loosening regulations, which have the effect of allowing you to keep more of your own money.

But I believe that if you’re going to go ahead with a bailout in an attempt to directly “stimulate” the economy you should at least direct the funds towards something that might have stimulative effects.

So I am a little curious as to how the provisions of Obama’s new $825B “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009″ bailout proposal will help stimulate much of anything (other than his political supporters).  The sheer amount of giveaways that have nothing at all to do with stimulus is staggering.  Here are the highlights of the demons lurking in the “stimulus” package:

  • $1B for Amtrak (the perpetual sinkhole!)
  • $2B for child-care subsidies
  • $50M for the National Endowment for the Arts (that is, the kind of art nobody wants to pay for voluntarily)
  • $400M for global-warming research
  • $2.4B for carbon-capture demonstration projects
  • $650M to pay for digital TV conversion coupons
  • $83B in earned income tax credits (these are “tax cuts” for people who don’t pay taxes)
  • $81B in Medicaid
  • $20B in food stamps
  • $7.5B in public housing (Auntie Zeituni gets new digs?)
  • $30B for COBRA health insurance extension
  • $36B for unemployment insurance
  • $4B for additional Social Security payments
  • $2.5B for welfare payments
  • $1B for nutrition programs
  • $66B in various educational expenses
  • $8B for renewable energy funding
  • $6B for mass transit funding

All total this is about $352B that has absolutely nothing to do with economic stimulus.  Obviously this plan is a liberal’s wet dream.  If spending on the above items qualifies as economic stimulus what wouldn’t? Our politicians are using this financial meltdown as an excuse to spend buckets of money on anything and everything they want. This is an absolute orgy, a complete free-for-all binge.

The plan does contain some spending that could be categorized as “stimulative”:

  • $30B for bridge and highway repair projects
  • $40B for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects
  • $20B for business tax cuts

Obama sold this plan to the public as an infrastructure rebuilding plan.  I only see $70B that can be categorized as infrastructure expenses.

Our politicians are lost in space.  Three months into the current fiscal year we already have a record deficit.  This is coming off the 2008 fiscal year which was also a record deficit. Now Obama wants a minimum of $852B in additional spending.  But our government debt will be far worse than just these massive spending increases.

One must also take into account that tax revenues will be down significantly from last year.  So we have a scenario of collapsing revenue and exploding expenditures.  Not good at all. Some day when I am not completely disgusted by these insatiable gluttons in our government I will do a more quantitative examination of our federal debt.

Democrats complained (rightfully so) that Bush racked up huge deficits.  But they are going to leave his spending in the dust.  Way back in ancient history (early 2004) the Federal deficit was a “meager” $375B.  Democrats said this was shameful and I agreed. What did Rahm Emanuel himself have to say about Bush’s deficit at that point in time?

“The deficit is going to be a symbol of their credibility problem”, said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

He said a $375B deficit was a credibility problem.  So what does a multi-trillion dollar deficit imply?

If a $375B deficit is a "credibility problem" then what is a $1T+ deficit?

But now a much, much larger deficit is OK with Mr. Emanuel, since his boss is at the helm.

Just a really basic question for our economic master planners:

HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR THIS SHIT?

January 29, 2009

Declining Personal Freedom

Filed under: freedom — Tags: — admin @ 10:04 pm

Slowly but surely our personal freedoms are being chipped away at.  People who think they can make better decisions for us than we can for ourselves are relentlessly encroaching on our ability to think and act for ourselves.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has declared “war on salt”.  This is not a joke.  He wants to restrict the levels of salt in food.  The rationale?  Apparently we’re too stupid to adjust our salt intake as we see fit:

City officials said that people don’t realize the salt content of the things they buy in the supermarket.

Thank you, city officials.  What would we do without your guidance?

I find it odd that Mr. Bloomberg sees fit to wage war on sodium at this point in time.  Wall St. is the engine of New York City, and that engine has seized up.  NYC tax revenue has absolutely plunged.  Taxes on a wide array of goods and services are going way up.  Massive spending cuts are to be enacted.  Even if you think Bloomberg’s plan is a good one is NOW really the best time for it???

The Boston Public Health Commision has recently enacted a ban on cigar bars in the city limits.  All cigar bars are to be kicked out of the city within 10 years.  My first reaction: who died and gave the Boston Public Health Commision the right to do this?  These are not elected officials.  Why do these assholes get to decide what I can and can’t do?  And what is the rationale of the ban on cigar bars?

“As we all know, smoking is the number one cause of preventable cancer deaths in the U.S.,” said Dr. Paula Johnson, chairwoman of the commission.  “It’s very important that we really think about what are the steps we can take to make our city as healthy as it can possibly be,” she said.

This is very dangerous reasoning.  If you accept the premise that the government should be able to make your health decisions for you then you are walking a very slippery slope.  What’s next- mandatory exercise every morning with Big Brother?  Bannning all saturated fats?  No more bacon?  Booze prohibited?  Using the exact same reasoning that anti-smoking authoritarian Paula Johnson uses, any or all of these things “unhealthy” substances should be banned.  Exercise should thus be mandatory.

The cigar bar banners think they’re being fair by allowing for a grace period before forcing the cigar bars to close:

Roger Swartz, who heads the commission’s community initiatives bureau, said the panel lengthened the grace period for the bars because of hard economic times.  “We wanted to give them a bit more time to get used to the idea that they’ll have to close,” Swartz said.

The problem, Mr. Swartz, is that their closing is NONE OF YOUR FREAKING BUSINESS.  If people don’t want cigar bars then they won’t stay in business.  But since you are not a capitalist apparently you know better than the cigar bar patrons.  Why don’t you make all their decisions for them?

Let’s assume for a moment that this smoking ban and sodium rationing did in fact make people healthier.  This increase in public health came with trade-offs.  First, people who work at cigar bars are S.O.L.  But their livelihoods are a trifling price to pay to fulfill the vision of the public health Nazis.  We have lost something deeper here, some of our precious freedom that our forefathers paid for with their blood.  And we are just giving it away to smug busybodies.

Every small freedom we give up resets the baseline for what constitutes acceptable governmental intrusion into our lives.  When will the prohibitionists stop?  Will our government appointed betters allow us to think for ourselves at all?

One of my all-time favorite quotes seems particularly appropriate.  To quote legendary Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman (who designed roads using very few traffic signs): “They’re treating you like you’re a complete idiot, and if people treat you like a complete idiot, you’ll act like one.” Quoted for truth!

January 28, 2009

Obsolete Business Models, Obsolete Careers

Filed under: business, deflation — Tags: , — admin @ 10:42 pm

We’re living in an era where many business models are becoming obsolete at once.  Entire industries are being decimated. This is an era of mass confusion, mass uncertainty.  This is an era of deflation.  Demand for almost every product or service is fading to more sustainable levels.  As we transition from a speculation-fueled economy back to a manufacturing economy there will be many painful adjustments.

The biggest carnage is in so-called “high finance”, the Wall St. business model. There are no more major investment banks.  MBAs used to high six-figure incomes are having a tough time finding any work.  MBA grads are scrambling to find work outside of finance.  Hedge funds are liquidating in large numbers.

you had a good run, MBA assholes

you had a good run, MBA assholes- but now it's time to do real work for more modest pay

“Big Law”, the system of industrial-scale law firms, is likewise under fire.  As corporations feel the pressures of the recession they are using Big Law firms less and less.  To cut costs Big Law is outsourcing and laying off massive numbers of (American) lawyers. Just like with manufacturing, it all comes down to cheap labor:

Starting associates at big U.S. firms often bill more than $200 an hour. But an experienced lawyer in India bills at $75 to $100 an hour, roughly the bottom rate for some U.S. paralegals.

How can a legal “factory” in America compete with costs more than twice as high?  But it’s not just Big Law attorneys who are in trouble.  Main Street lawyers are likewise under immense deflationary pressure due to a gross oversupply of lawyers and increasingly from do-it-yourself software.  If software can work for something as complicated as filing taxes why can’t it work for routine legal matters?  Lawyers essentially sell legal information and in the information age NOTHING is easier to outsource.

you guys had a good run too

you guys had a good run too. Adios!

The MBA and the JD have traditionally been sure-fire tickets to an upper-middle class / upper class life.  But these sure-fire paths are too expensive these days.

So many quality pieces of software are available for free these days that I wonder how long the software industry will survive in its current form.  Increasingly free software is becoming as good as or better than the software available for a price.  A few finds that I would like to share:

  • I bought my wife a laptop a few months ago but didn’t want to pay for MS Office software (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.).  To my surprise I was able to find a perfectly adequate substitute for no cost, OpenOffice.  For 99% of users this is just as good as MS Office. What’s nice is that you can save to and read from Microsoft formats.
  • At home I sometimes do data analysis for fun.  Normally MATLAB would be my first choice but I stumbled onto a free vectorized computing language, R.  This is just as good as the high-cost MATLAB for almost all purposes.  For statistical computing it is superior.   It has thousands of add-on packages available at no cost.
  • I found a free movie editor, VirtualDub, which is vastly superior to all other movie editors I have used (QuickTime, Windows Movie Editor, etc.).  This is a piece of software developed by an individual programmer and it is better software than what multi-billion dollar corporations have produced.

A quick inventory of my computer shows a vast array of free software.  The only premium software I use is software that comes with my computer or software that someone else buys for me.  The point here is that the software industry is feeling the same deflationary pressures as the legal and financial industries.

Next up is the newspaper industry.  Its woes are well known.  Major papers have gone bankrupt and many wore will follow.  Ad revenue is plunging while the subscriber base is shrinking.  Newsrooms across the world are being gutted.  When New York Times debt is rated as “junk” you know things are not going well for the industry. Fundamentally there has been a shift in how people get news.

Also in decline are the television, music, radio, and movie industries.

Now what is the common denominator for all of these industries in decline???

All of the above industries sell information and information is cheaper and easier to acquire than ever before.  Any industry that is based on brokering information has already been facing immense cost pressures.  With the recession and the associated need to cut costs to the bone customers will find cheaper information sources than the industries mentioned above.

Make no mistake-  tremendous upheaval is stirring.  The internet and information technology have become enormously deflationary technologies.  Many of the institutions that we know and have grown up with will not be around 5 years from now.

Rediscovering Limited Government Roots?

Filed under: bailouts, economics, politics — Tags: , — admin @ 8:06 pm

I’m of the belief that bailouts are ultimately worse than the disease they are allegedly curing.  The reasons are too numerous and outside the scope of this post.

Fortunately some folks in the government are starting to think that way, too.

Last Thursday the House of Representatives voted to block the release of a second allottment of TARP bailout bucks, $350B worth.  Unfortunately the bailout is still going to go through due to clauses in the initial TARP bill but the “NO” is symbolic and loudly heard.

This is following the usual cyclical pattern: Republicans give lip service to limited government when they are not in power.  When they get back in power they become consumed with keeping power and spend as bad or worse than Democrats, betraying their avowed limited government principles.  I was really disappointed that Republicans in the Bush years expanded government spending and deficits so dramatically.  They had a genuine opportunity to pin down the size and scope of government but they blew it in a big way.

I sure hope Obama is not going to be able to breeze his ~ $1T pork-laden “stimulus” plan through this Congress.  Regardless of its merits $335M for STD prevention IS NOT ECONOMIC STIMULUS.

January 27, 2009

Real Time Uncertainty Indicator

Filed under: economics — Tags: — admin @ 7:44 pm

The core function of banks is to lend money for a profit.  News and indicators of tightening credit are everywhere but it is difficult to get a sense of how much lending has dried up.  Sometimes a simple chart can spell things out much more clearly than any amount of words.  Case in point:

excess_bank_reserves_fedreserve

“Excess reserves” are bank reserves in excess of the minimum reserve requirements established by the Federal Reserve bank.  For the past 50 years the excess reserves have been essentially nil, with tiny upticks these past few years.  But in this past year nearly $800B in excess, fully lendable reserves have been sitting in banks.

There are a few reasons for this asymptotic rise in excess reserves.  For starters, people are actually saving money these days, a welcome change from the past (unless you’re an economist).  Due to the devastation in the stock and real estate markets people are in capital preservation mode, so the savings remain in bank accounts.  But banks are not lending with the excess returns because they have been burned with massive losses on bad loans.  Banks cannot afford to loan as they need the excess funds just to stay solvent.

No one wants to take risks.  There is too much uncertainty in the air.  In this regard I believe our government is only making things worse.  Investors do not know what rules our government will change and how they will be affected in the process.

There is a massive amount of money sitting on the sidelines.  This is why things will improve, eventually.  There is a massive amount of money looking for a good return on investment.  At the moment it is not clear where to deploy this money to get a good, safe return.  But this shall pass.

These excess reserves will stay tied up until the bad debt is shaken out of the system.  Our government is making things worse-  by reinforcing failed institutions the federal government is prolonging and even expanding the uncertainty.

January 26, 2009

Mass Psychology Shift

Filed under: economics, psychology — Tags: , — admin @ 12:08 pm

We’re in the midst of a profound shift in mass psychology.  For the past 5 years overconsumption has been the norm.  Think about the cultural symbols of excess: MTV Cribs, “bling bling”, the McMansion, $5 coffee, luxury cars as common as Toyotas on the highways…

All of this proved to be too much and now consumers are scaling back attitudes and expectations.  Contrary to the claims of socialist pig CEOs and cash-strapped state and local governments this recession is not the end of the world.  Consumers are still consuming, they’re just changing how much and what they consume.  People are looking for value much more than they have in recent history.  As a barometer of this psychology shift it is useful to focus on two companies: one that focuses on value, the other on luxury.

McDonalds did quite well in 2008 despite the economic meltdown- an 80% net profit rise from 2007!  The dollar menu draws ‘em in (it sure draws me in). 

IN

IN

Contrast this with Starbucks, which caters (catered?) to conspicuous consumption.  In 2008 they closed 616 stores in America and layed off 2000 jobs.  It looks like the cuts were insufficient, as they are now going to eliminate an additional 1000 jobs

OUT

OUT

I’ll give Starbucks (and anyone else that catered to conspicuous consumption) free advice: make cheaper , better value drinks.  The good old days are not coming back in your lifetime.  Your core customers are drowning in debt and coffee is at the bottom of the priority list.  Getting coffee out is an indulgence- $5 ”socially responsible” venti soy chai teas are just not in the budget for the masses.  Change your brand to pursue the value-conscious middle of the roader. 

People are resilient- they are adjusting to the realities of this recession in an orderly manner.  Businesses are adjusting as well.  When will governments reduce their expectations and cut spending?

January 23, 2009

The Biggest Socialists in America

Filed under: bailouts, business — Tags: — admin @ 9:15 pm

I rarely agree with Michael Moore but one observation of his was spot-on: CEOs of big corporations are on the whole much more socialistic than the average man on the street.  Of course the socialism of CEOs goes only one way.  Your tax dollars are socialized to subsidize their losses.  The public trough is to be used to finance the risks they want to reap the rewards of but don’t want to be responsible for.  Rules and regulations are used to block competitors or bludgeon them over the head.  CEOs use the law not as a way of defending their rights but as a revenue enhancement tool.

I am reminded of this by the revelation that John Thain, former CEO of Merril Lynch, used an estimated $4B in taxpayer bailout money to pay bonuses to his executives.  A company on taxpayer funded life support has no right to pay billions of dollars in bonuses.  That didn’t matter to Thain.  Apparently he didn’t want his top employees to jump ship to competitors.  Thain thinks the American taxpayer has to pay for Merril Lynch to remain competitive.  What planet is this man living on?

CEOs are under immense pressure to deliver returns to shareholders.  How they get the returns is of little consequence to them.  What they do not want is honest and fair competition.  They want to cripple or strangle their competitors by any means necessary.  If they can take out their competitors through legislation it doesn’t bug them in the slightest.

Anytime you hear businesses promoting some new legislation or regulations with high-minded slogans you must be cautious.  There is always a profit motive with CEOs.  Always.  ALWAYS!!!

They will dress up their motives in fluffy rhetoric about social responsibility, being good stewards of the environment, etc.  But underlying these empty words is the desire to improve the bottom line by any means necessary.

Hedge fund mannager T. Boone Pickens is a great example of the socialist CEO.  He invested $2B in wind energy projects when the price of oil was well over $100/barrel.  Now that fossil fuel prices have cratered he is going to lose his shirt and he wants his losses to be subsidized.  He has unveiled the “Pickens Plan” which calls for us to (among other things) generate 22% of our electricity from wind energy.  All he wants is $150B of taxpayer dollars to salvage his $2B in mal-investment.

billionaire socialist PIG

T. Boone Pickens: billionaire SOCIALIST pig

GE is a big supporter of the “Pickens Plan”, as they make the wind turbines that this plan would use.  GE CEO Jeff Immelt says that our federal government needs to quickly increase support for green energy.  Naturally it’s all about making the world a cleaner, better place.

CEO socialist PIG

Jeffrey Immelt: CEO of GE and SOCIALIST pig

Of course the Detroit three CEOs spring to mind as well.  Under capitalism these outfits would go bankrupt and restructure their crippling labor agreements.  Instead their CEOs begged Congress for their multi-billion dollar bailouts (more to come, to be sure) so that they wouldn’t have to live with a bankruptcy on their resumes.

Everyone knows that it takes hundreds of millions of dollars, on average, to produce a pharmaceutical that meets FDA approval (these guys claim the cost is more than $800M!).  You might think that drug company CEOs would be lobbying to streamline some of these regulations.  But big pharmaceutical companies like the FDA approval process because it dramatically stifles competition.  A promising upstart company can and often will be destroyed by one FDA approval failure.  The big companies can survive the rejections.  Another reason big pharmaceutical CEOs like FDA rules is because they allow legal risk to be sidestepped.

CEOs are very short sighted.  All they have been looking at is the next quarter (one of the main contributing factors to this recession we are in).  Fundamentally this short-sightedness stems from investors demanding high returns: if CEOs don’t produce good results early and often they are out.  Hedge funds, pension funds, and other institutional investors NEED high returns on investment to stay viable.  I am optimistic that this recession will change investor psychology somewhat.  We shall see.

One thing for sure: if there is ever a way for large corporations to use the law to funnel cash into their pockets, they will try it!

UPDATE:  As if on cue, this article appeared the day after my post.  Google has donated to the Obama campaign in a big way and now they expect to bend the rules in their favor.

First, it wants to expand high-speed Internet access so people can use its Web services more often. It also is pushing for so-called network neutrality: prohibitions on telecommunications companies charging websites for faster delivery of their content.

Google wants people to have high-speed internet access to its websites…  but it wants YOU to pay for this.  It also wants to use a disproportionate share of bandwidth without paying a disproportionate amount of the costs.   Google is particularly masterful in hiding their profit motives in terms of idealistic motives and phrases.  As a result I trust them less than I trust most corporations.

January 21, 2009

Analyzing Obama’s Inaugural Address

Filed under: politics — Tags: — admin @ 12:14 pm

The media is gushing over Obama’s inaugural address.  I’m reading the highlights to get more insight into what Obama will try to do in office.   My initial impression was that he’s a classic tax and spend liberal, he’ll gut the military, etc.  His defense cabinet picks surprised me a little, however, so there might be more deviations from the mold I had projected.  At any rate I will judge him by actions and not his rhetoric. 

So far I don’t like his rhetoric.  From his address:

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.”

This is a crystal-clear revelation of Obama’s vision for what government should fundamentally do: pay a “living wage”, provide healthcare, and supply a “dignified” retirement (whatever the hell dignified implies).  I don’t like these things because they COST ME MONEY and they promote government dependency for things that people should be doing themselves.  But that’s the difference from Obama and myself.  He thinks the core function of government should be to give people stuff from taxpayers.  I think the core function of government is to provide general law and order, and NOT to attempt to solve basic personal finance problems. 

Those are his words, but I suspect his actions will be severely constrained by budget realities.  There is only so much money to go around.  Any tax increases are going to be a hard sell at a time when people need to keep their own money more than ever before.  It’s going to be difficult to increase deficits when creditor nations stop buying our treasury bonds (already in process).  The general public and Congress is very weary of massive bailouts with indeterminate effects.  So I expect that President Obama will not be able to fulfill his major goals.

January 20, 2009

Hoping For The Best… Expecting The Worst

Filed under: economics, politics — Tags: , — admin @ 10:21 pm

I wish President Obama the best in his presidency.  He is inheriting a pretty crappy scenario but unfortunately I think his plans will only make things worse.

barack-obama-capitol

Obama is a very ambitious man and he has many big goals on his list. He wants to rack up ever more massive deficits in a misguided “stimulus”, an attempt to spend money that we don’t have to escape the recession that we are in.  He wants CO2 taxes that would strangle commerce at a time when businesses and consumers are already gasping for air.  He wants some form of nationalized healthcare as well.  Any one of these things would be a massive undertaking in the best of times, but right now they’re particularly ill-suited.

We will climb out of this recession by innovation, not by “genius” central planning.  FDR spent considerable sums of money on stimulus efforts in the 1930’s, to no avail.  In the 1990’s Japan likewise undertook massive public works projects, to no avail.

Why will this time be any different?

This is a time in our history when we can ill afford grand plans.  This is a time for scaling back and normalizing, for downsizing expectations and attitudes.  Consumers and businesses have cut spending.  Government must tighten the belt as well but that does not look like the path we’re headed down.  Now would be a good time for Republicans to rediscover their limited government values.

Oh well, at least Bush is out of office.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress