China eases taxes for foreign companies

China will cut taxes on the profits that foreign companies take out of the country by up to 50 per cent after rules on withholding taxes were relaxed to encourage more overseas investment.

The move will also apply to dividends paid by Chinese listed companies to foreign shareholders through the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor scheme . In both cases, the lower tax rates will apply only to companies and shareholders based in countries, such as the UK, that have double taxation agreements with China.

The changes could save companies billions of dollars worth of tax payments, which might initially lead them to repatriate more profits, but ultimately should provide incentives for more investments, according to experts at KPMG. US companies, however, cannot benefit as they are taxed on a global basis by US authorities.

“The bigger picture is that because of the economic situation globally over the past couple of years, China sees the need to create a friendlier environment for foreign investors,” said Khoon Ming Ho of KPMG China. “This comes just as many companies are applying to make remittances of their half-year dividends.”

So the Dems, along with the usual Rino’s managed to get all US company assets taxed globally. Now here comes the easily foreseen response.

When it comes to international trade what must be understood is that Newton’s laws apply! For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Our own cupidity will result in less investment opportunities and less profits for US companies.

We have heard all of the adjectives before, politics today are too shrill, too partisan, ineffective, broken, etc. I will try to make some sense of it all.

Since I have called myself a conservative-libertarian I will begin by critiquing those on my side of the fence. The problems with conservatives. First of all, conservatives are very divided, there seems to be no consensus within conservatism as to what really is conservatism. The second thing to note is that today, CONSERVATIVES ARE POWERLESS.

Yes, you heard me right, conservatives have almost no power in Federal politics, although there are a few conservatives in power in State offices. The reason for this is simple. Conservatives do not yet control the Republican Party. Moderates are in firm control there. Although there has been significant push-back by conservatives they do not control very many of the key spots in the legislature.

This internal struggle has caused bitterness and division and the root of nearly all of this divisiveness is the Bush clan. From 1988 to 2008, a very long time in politics, The Bush’s and their followers controlled the Republican party. They were in many ways the worse of all possible worlds. They ran as conservatives, governed as big spenders. Talked up the social issues without really doing anything about them, and worked almost tirelessly to increase the power and scope of government over our lives. The Bush’s were also the ONLY Republican leaders to get us into wars since the nineteenth century.

Conservatives are sometimes frustrating to talk to, there are the Social conservatives who are many times one (or two) issue voters. They are of course waging a war against evil. The problem with that is you sometimes have to compromise in politics, but you can never compromise with evil can you? Such conservatives often oppose many things even when you can show overwhelming evidence. For instance the increasing militarization of our police forces, unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws, and just the general mayhem caused by the War on Drugs. Any suggestion that some sort of new approach is needed is usually met by belligerent moralizing and a lack of facts.

There are the War Hawks who are similarly convinced that only the constant use of American power abroad keeps the world safe. Notwithstanding that the more American force has been used in recent years, the more chaotic things have become. War Hawks can be extremely fiscally conservative but never let it bleed over to either the State Department or the Military. They are resistant when you point out that the Military is perhaps the most bloated, and least efficiently run part of our entire government (especially procurement where there is always a lot of fraud and sweetheart deals).

Then there are the moderates. What can I say about them? Well they are mostly LIARS that’s what I can say. Moderates in positions of power within the Republican party are mostly a pack of liars. They constantly give lip service to fiscal sanity but undermine it each and every time.

I suppose you can say that they are not really moderates at all. Now someone like Chris Christie is a true moderate. That means he is a hard nosed conservative on some issues and not conservative on others. Someone like that can be a very good political ally, because at least on the things you agree on he will be reliable.

But most of the so called moderates we have in the legislature are not really moderates at all because the are squishy on nearly every issue. What they are is simply lying, pandering, earmarking politicos. They should be defeated. The party would be much better off if they were replaced by people with real convictions even if they were only conservative on 60-80% of the issues.

Then there are the Libertarians. Although many conservatives have a visceral dislike for libertarians, in my opinion they represent a growing constituency that will be an increasingly important part of the coalition. But Libertarians are by nature not very political. By nature the libertarian mind is better suited to philosophy and increasingly esoteric ideas about natural law and free market economics. As a result libertarians are not practical. They are not pragmatic and they always overestimate the power of their views.

They also can be, unfortunately, extremely doctrinaire. They would most often rather abandon any candidate in which they might not share even 50% of their views even if that means that someone who holds none of their views comes to power.

Even when libertarians have some good ideas such as auditing the Fed, or changing some of the drug enforcement laws, they are likely to go too far, and push for too much. Both in viewpoints and rhetoric nearly every libertarian is extreme (at least the ones with a national audience).

This brings us to the Left wing. Many of my conservative friends would say that all lefties (liberals, progressives, pinkos, whatever you want to call them) and all of their ideas are wrong. But this is simply not true.

The left has an impressive list of issues in which at the beginning they were on the correct side while conservatives were opposed. This would include civil rights, conservation, consumer and worker safety, and even a social safety net.

The problem is not that the left are always wrong, the problem is that they always have the wrong instincts, and they never know when to stop. What I mean by that is, the BIG centralized government program is not just their preferred solution to every problem, it is the only one.

And, they don’t know when to stop, they have no self-regulator, that is why every achievement in the past century has turned into garbage. Civil rights has become a racial spoils system and quota regime. Consumer safety has become a nightmare of litigation expense and endless regulation. Environmentalism has become a haven for apocalyptic extremists and a war on industry. The social safety net has become ever growing entitlement that are rapidly bankrupting us.

Even when they have good intentions or good instincts the left are simply too dangerous, like a child with a flamethrower. Unbridled progressivism always leads to disasters like Detroit, Greece, Spain and California.

And left wing politicians are simply incapable of ever downsizing any aspect of government. You might expect a left administration to at least stop funding most of the war on drugs since that has long been part of their rhetoric. But instead, this administration has doubled down and even sold guns to drug lords! You would expect them to decrease the foreign commitments, but instead we had new police actions. They just are not able to say no to any part of government. Government is their God, it really is that simple, they worship the power of Government.

Increasingly we talk past each other. All sides are filled with the rightness of their cause and the infamous “known facts”. Increasingly both sides are filled with indignation and insult. Conservatives are far from immune, although in my opinion the left are the more extreme. I can say that with some evidence. At least there are some right leaning opinion websites where you can still come on with a reasoned opinion from the other side and not get slammed too hard.

I know of no left wing website in which evidencing even a mildly right wing view in a very polite way won’t get you pilloried with the most extreme abuse. The reason for this is simple. It pervades all left wing writings and left wing thought, it is simply that they not only think they are right, they also think they are better people than anyone who does not share their views. They really really do think that they are both smarter, more rational, and more moral. Even though when you try to engage them on issues more often than not you get the most shallow sloganeering and easily debunked myths.

But neither the right nor libertarians are immune to some of this as well. The problem with the Rah-Rahing for your side is that your side might not always be right. And even when right, there is always a danger of going too far. So you can see my problem. Being “pure” in your ideology will usually fail, being moderate usually means you are not strong enough in your convictions so the left wins by default. Being pragmatic, picking and choosing ideas, will leave you open to attacks of not being pure enough.

I don’t have a solution, all I have now is problems.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/kyle8/2012/05/03/the-big-problems-with-politics-now/feed/ 1 http://www.redstate.com/kyle8/2012/04/15/ok-so-your-guy-gal-critter-did-not-win-the-nomination-what-now/ http://www.redstate.com/kyle8/2012/04/15/ok-so-your-guy-gal-critter-did-not-win-the-nomination-what-now/#comments Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:58:43 +0000 kyle8 (Diary) http://www.redstate.com/kyle8/?p=84 Read More »]]> Your favorite Guy. gal, charleton, whatever, was so WAAAAAAAAAYY better than this evil Romney Squish who is little better than Obama, Amirite?

Count ME in that group, I was a big Perry fan and lost out.

So what now?  Well here is what now, stop complaining because there is no one of us who is smart enough to know exactly who is the best candidate, at this time, and life is full of surprises.

Imagine my surprise, for instance when Ronald Reagan’s own vice president, G H W Bush turned out to be a big government, taxer who got us into two small wars in four years.

“S” happens. But I was also pleasantly surprised by the afor-mentioned mister Reagan, who turned out to be just what we needed, at just the right time.

The thing is that we have a system. I don’t much like it, and it can sure be improved, but it is a system and it allows the wisdom of the crowd to come into play.

In the Book,  The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, by James Surowiecki  He theorizes that information in groups, results in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. He backs it up with a lot of examples.

There is a reason for this, the group, acts with less personal bias, bias of viewpoint, information, or anything else. Less, because the various biases are balanced out.

So let’s stop pouting and get with the program. Maybe Romney will be a disaster, but surely that is unknown, What IS KNOWN is that Obama certainly is a disaster.

Here is parts of an article from Washington Times:

“”California also became the first state in the nation to require a prescription for obtaining any drug containing dextromethorphan, an ingredient found in many popular over-the-counter cough suppressants, including Robitussin, NyQuil and Dimetapp.

Voter identification continued to be a hot topic for legislators in 2011. Four states — Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas — approved laws requiring voters to present photo identification before casting ballots.

Employers will be required to use E-Verify to determine the eligibility of their employees starting Jan. 1 in four states — Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia. In California, however, legislators bucked the trend by prohibiting any state or local government from requiring employers to use the E-Verify program unless required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds.

In education, California approved two hotly debated laws slated to take effect on New Year’s Day. The California Dream Act expands eligibility for institutional grants and fee waivers to students who are in the country illegally at the state’s university systems and community colleges.

California also becomes the first state to mandate the teaching of gay history. A new law requires schools to include in the public-school curriculum the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, along with disabled persons and others. The statute, which has no age limit, also bans instructional material that discriminates against those groups.”"

Can anyone living there tells us how this came to be?

Now, I will not say that Peggy(not her real name) is not a conservative. She is actually very conservative.  However, (and this is a big however) She has repeatadly, and consistenly attacked every single person who ever made the nati0onal stage as  a conservative.

Well, Hey!, screw you Peg!  *

* Yeah, I know that is not very intellectual but so the hell what?

that Newt Gingrich had too much baggage, and that he would “Frighten” much of te electorate.  Well, Historically I say that is Bunk.

Let me state before hand, that I am not a big Gingrich supporter. I actually support and will vote for Perry.  Having said that, I think Gingrich is a phenomenal candidate who can be a transendentil reform candidate.  Romney cannot.

But here is the reason I disagree with a Charles.  Those of us who are old enough to remember the years 1979 and 1980 will recall that EVEN WORSE THINGS were said about Ronald Wilson Reagan.  He was described both by Democrats and some of his fellow Republicans as A Dunce, a warmonger, a racist, a cowboy, and of course, as “uncompassionate”.

But he won by a rather large margin. The reason he won is because AMERICANS ARE NOT TOTALLY STUPID.  Yes, they can be fooled for a short time, But eventually they will see that the far left is a recipe for disaster.  Obama has now been totally painted with the trait of left/liberal/progressivism and there is no chance now that he can crawl away from it.

I don’t think that a person espousing solid conservative values right now can possibly lose to  Obama, unless they do something stupid to self destruct.   That means that Romney could certainly win.  But how much better to have someone more conservative, and more educated, more intellectual, and more experienced.

1) If you hold gold or other metals be thinking about selling. I already sold half of my gold for a small profit and all the rest will be pure gravy. Gold may go up in the short term but is still in a bubble. I think $2000 is a psychological barrier and I will unload the rest of my gold before that point or if they price begins to drop again.  Watch it daily.

2) Now is actually a good time to buy stocks. But look for solid companies with good P/E and depressed prices.

3) Stay out of debt, but if you need to purchase something big like a car or house, then now is the time since I don’t think these low rates will last much longer.

Now for my explanation.  I think that the markets, business leaders, investors, and almost everyone with any sense has completely discounted Team Obama, and Bernanke.  In other words there is no downward push left to their failed policies.  What everyone is doing now is just basically waiting for regime change.

The Euro debt crises has also had a slow down effect on investment, but I think the Euros will handle their problems and will come out a bit stronger. It is important to note that unlike our nation, nearly every European country has taken steps to reduce it’s huge bloated government. Small steps to be sure, but steps in the right direction. Meanwhile Eastern Europe and the rest of the world are still experiencing growth, just not as fast as before.

My belief based on past experience is that the worst of the Euro crises will coincide with the Republicans solidifying behind one candidate, and by middle of next year there will be a modest increase in investment, and employment.

Of course the idiots in the government could still find some way to screw everything up but you have to have some hope.

“”"”House keeps farm subsidies, cuts food aid as it passes food and farm spending bill

WASHINGTON — The Republican-led House voted to slash domestic and international food aid Thursday while rejecting cuts to farm subsidies.

A spending bill to fund the nation’s food and farm programs would cut the Women, Infants and Children program, which offers food aid and educational support for low-income mothers and their children, by $868 million, or 13 percent. An international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development would drop by more than $450 million, one-third of the program’s budget. The legislation passed 217-203. “”"”

read it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-government/house-blocks-cotton-payments-to-brazil-renewing-trade-dispute-with-that-country/2011/06/16/AGRZGUXH_story.html

A few years ago I researched and published a Diary on the horrible results of Farm subsidies, They do a LOT more harm than just costing you tax dollars.

I will just reprint it here::

The Real Culprit in the Attack on America (from 8/2008)

Conservatives are quick to accuse Left wingers of being unpatriotic or backing bad economic policies. Left wingers are quick to accuse Conservatives of being callus to the plight of the poor and backing restrictive policies on human rights.  Libertarians and Greens blame everyone for everything.
But there is one group which has really done more than any other to; 1) Undermine America’s standing with the world  2)  Place enormous burdens upon the taxpayer  3) place enormous burdens on consumers  4) facilitate the mass illegal migration and all it’s concomitant problems we are now facing. And, 5)  cause misery in the poorest parts of the world.
Who are these villains? Well, its the Farmers, Agricultural lobby, and big Agri-business.  We are so used to hearing sob stories about the “poor family farm” or the personal steadfastness and virtue of those who work the land. But its mostly a load of Bull.  There are very few small family farms left, and farmers, like any other people have proved susceptible to the seduction of the government hand out.

Agricultural subsidies cost Americans directly and indirectly over 150 billion dollars per year.

According to Brazilian Business Law Scholar Durval de Noronha Goyos JR:

In the USA, there are at present no fewer than 10 direct and 10 indirect programmes of agricultural subsidies. In absolute numbers, US agricultural subsidies reached today an amount of US$ 150 billion for a total agricultural production of US$ 128 billion, which makes subsidies represent 115% of the effective production. These stunning numbers signify that the USA has long ceased being a market economy in the agricultural sector.

According to the Heritage Foundation the cost is:
a total of $190 billion in taxes on American families and an additional burden of $271 billion in inflated food prices.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1510.cfm

Agricultural subsidies aggravate illegal immigration.

Even a Left wing pundit like Steven C. Clemons understands.

Steven C. Clemons

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2985

Congress seems to believe that while the United States must be protected from an invasion of educated, bright and ambitious foreign college students, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs, we can never have too many low-wage fruit-pickers and dishwashers.

In making immigration laws, Congress caters to cheap-labor industries like agribusiness and sweatshop manufacturing while short-changing the high-tech, high-wage industries on which the future of the American economy depends. Witness the Senate bill’s provision to admit 400,000 temporary workers a year, or roughly four million a decade, in addition to the 12 million mostly low-wage illegal immigrants already here, many of whose status would be legalised. Few if any of those guest workers would go to universities, corporate campuses or innovation clusters like Silicon Valley. They would head straight to restaurants, hotels and plantation-like farms.

While the United States perversely tries to corner the market in uneducated hotel maids and tomato harvesters, other industrial democracies are reshaping their immigration policies to invite the skilled immigrants that we turn away. Britain is following Australia and Canada in adopting a points system that gives higher scores to skilled immigrants with advanced education and proficiency in English.

BUT, It goes even further than that. The Agricultural subsidies are not only creating a demand for unskilled labor, but by dumping subsidized produce on world markets you destroy farmer’s livlihood in poor nations such as Mexico and cause those same people to seek their fortune elsewhere.

Agricultural Subsidies cause havoc in the third world, and are a stumbling block to better relations with our trading partners.

Here is the argument made by the NCPA:

Subsidised agriculture in the developed world is one of the greatest obstacles to economic growth in the developing world. In 2002, industrialised countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) spent a total of $300 billion on crop price supports, production payments and other farm programs. These subsidies encourage overproduction. Markets are flooded with surplus crops that are sold below the cost of production, depressing world prices. Countries with unsubsidised goods are essentially shut out of world markets, devastating their local economies. Moreover, farm subsidies lead to environmental harm in rich and poor nations alike.

Prosperous countries give about $50 billion to $55 billion annually in foreign aid to underdeveloped nations. If developed nations reduced their subsidies and eliminated trade barriers — such as import tariffs protecting domestic producers from international competition — this aid would arguably be unnecessary and rural poverty might be significantly reduced.

Historically, agriculture has been a major pillar — if not the foundation — of developing economies because it provides food security, creates employment and generates local capital. For example, in 1790, nearly 90 percent of the U.S. workforce was employed in agriculture. By 1900, farmers dropped to 38 percent of the labor force, and today they account for less than 1 percent. Agriculture accounts for less than 1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Similar trends in other OECD countries indicate that the path to development begins with agriculture.

Hindering Third World Growth. Every dollar, yen or euro poured into the agriculture sectors of rich nations makes developing countries’ farm sectors that much less competitive. The “dumping” of agricultural commodities at prices lower than the cost of production is devastating to developing countries, since most depend almost entirely on only one or a few products. Every year, farm subsidies cost developing countries about $24 billion in lost agricultural income.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba547/

Here is some more information:

Rich countries spend billions subsidizing their agricultural sector, leading to chronic overproduction and dumping surpluses on global markets. Poor countries demand reform of this trade practice that impoverishes small-scale farmers while enriching large agri-business.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/subsidies/index.htm

Farm subsidies don’t go to small family farms, they mostly go to huge Agribusiness, like Archer Daniels Midland, Con-Agra, and Dole Pineapple, among others.

Here again is the Heritage Foundation:

With agricultural programs designed to target large and profitable farms rather than family farmers, it should come as no surprise that farm subsidies in 2002 were distributed overwhelmingly to large growers and agribusinesses–including a number of Fortune 500 companies. Chart 2 shows that the top 10 percent of recipients received 65 percent of all farm subsidies in 2002.6 At the other end, the bottom 80 percent of recipients (including most family farmers) received just 19 percent of all farm subsidies.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1763.cfm

The most successful program to steal your money from you by  Agri-business is Ethanol subsidies.

Ethanol is touted as the way to get off of foreign sources of energy, But that is a crock.
It is not even accepted that Ethanol production produces more energy than it requires*, and at any rate, bio-diesel, or sugar beet production are both more efficient than ethanol from corn.   This is a titanic boondoggle and a huge lie and slap in the face of Americans who think they are being “Green”.  But someone else said it better than me, This from Vladimir on REDSTATE.Com:

Example: by mandating ethanol in our motor fuel, and by outlawing imports of ethanol refined elsewhere, we’ve had to deal with the impact of high levels of corn production on our ecosystem. Corn is one of the most taxing crops on the soil, and its cultivation requires large amounts of nitrogen fertilizers (derived, by the way, from natural gas). Runoff of nitrogen fertilizer is the primary culprit for the annual “Dead Zone” that forms in the Gulf of Mexico. I’ve seen it variously described as “the size of Connecticut” and “the size of New Jersey”; for our purposes we’ll stipulate that it’s the size of a densely-populated north-eastern state. An oxygen-depleted zone, it virtually wipes out commercial fishing.

* CORN ETHANOL TAKES MORE ENERGY THAN IT MAKES

ENS, USA, July 13, 2005

http://www.sarid.net/technology/050713-ethanol.htm

Berkeley, California, July 13, 2005 (ENS) – Using ethanol as an additive to make gasoline burn cleaner does more harm than good to the environment, finds a new report by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. The study concludes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than the power the ethanol provides in a car engine.

Beware this evil called Ethanol.

Ethanol,  The last, best, hope for big profits
Ethanol,  The last refuge of a scoundrel
Ethanol,  Like the proverbial lilies of the field, it toils not, neither does it spin
Ethanol,  Full of sound and fury, signifying, nothing
Ethanol,  Crucifying America on a cross of Corn!

This just in!  Ethanol will cause hunger!

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm

All that is standard, and it is historically true.  But the questions to ask now are these:  Will any further tax cuts right now actually spur economic growth? Or would other things be more effective? And, will tax cuts really increase revenues, or decrease them.

Unfortunately I am suspicious that many conservatives have a misunderstanding of supply side economics. Tax cuts, and supply side are not magic. They are not a cure all for whatever ails you.  I ask you to witness the current economic environment. Right now, due to various tax cuts in the last two years we are at the lowest rate of both income taxes, and capital gains taxes that we have seen in thirty years. Yet the economy shows no signs of recovery.

Here is the way that supply side equations work.  You have all, no doubt heard of the Laffer Curve, named for economist Art Laffer.  According to supply side theory, if the tax rates are north of the Laffer Curve then increasing rates will so depress economic activity that you get less income than you had before. And if you lower the rate, then you actually increase tax income.

This is all absolutely true and can be seen to have worked several times in the past.  However, What if your tax rates are already below the point of equilibrium on the Laffer curve?   What happens then is that lower in rates further will not noticeably increase economic activity and will result in less revenue for the government.

Right now we have to ask this question, Are we at or below that equilibrium point?  I think there is good reason to conclude that we are.  As much as I like Tax cuts for their own sake, is it responsible to advocate further cutting when such huge deficits loom.  DON’T GET ME WRONG! We can never lower our deficits with just tax increases, We must have real substantive spending cuts.  But the simple truth is that we will probably have to have both.  Just as a case of reality and political necessity.

Please do not take this the wrong way, I am a total believer in supply side economics and I have nothing against Herman Cain or any of the other candidates calling for tax cuts.  But we have to be sober and not rely upon wishful thinking.

Why exactly is the economy so bad, and not responding to tax cuts?  Well there are several likely reasons. A regime which is hostile to business, a huge increase in regulations, a spend thrift congress, huge deficits, and uncertainty about the future.  But probably the biggest reason is the Federal Reserve and their manipulation of the currency. This has caused the Dollar to take a hard fall. That drives up commodity prices and causes us to have what amounts to a huge hidden TAX INCREASE, in the form of fuel, food, and commodity prices.

{ FAIRLESS HILLS, Pa. (AP) — Pitching the promise of energy independence, President Barack Obama cautioned Wednesday that it’s going to be tough to transition from America’s oil-dependent economy and acknowledged there’s little he can do to lower gas prices over the short term.

“I’m just going to be honest with you. There’s not much we can do next week or two weeks from now,” the president told workers at a wind turbine plant. It’s a theme Obama’s struck before as he tries to show voters he’s attuned to a top economic concern with gas prices pushing toward $4 a gallon.}

In other words, “You’ll get used to it”

To those of us old enough to remember, this reminds us of the Jimmah “Malaise” speech. In that speech Carter tried to get us to believe that we just had to accept less out of life.  That was the beginning of the end for the peanut farmer. Let us hope this is the beginning of the end of the “Organizer in Chief”.

It is clear to me that we have a lag in aggregate demand because everyone already has what they need. I therefore propose that the government institute a program whereby they go to citizen’s homes at random and destroy their property. If random consumer goods are destroyed then it only stands to reason that this will be a huge boost to demand.

Now some might think that this will fall afoul of the fifth amendment guarantees, but that is a takings clause, and this is not a taking. I feel sure that the legal minds that produced the Obama health bill can come up with the proper justifications.

That is an amazing amount of lunacy to come from someone who is supposedly a trained and respected economist. It violates one of the basic tenets of economics. Bastiat’s broken windows fallacy.

Don’t let anyone fool you, a disaster or a war, do not boost the economy and will not bring anyone out of a bad economy.  That is because of something called opportunity costs.  Opportunity costs are all the purchases or investments you could make with a given amount of money that you used on something else. Just as the money spent by government on ethanol subsidies or a bridge to nowhere could have been better spent investing in new private sector investment or consumption.

What are the opportunity costs of the billions spent on rebuilding? What do you do about the lose of property that is irreplaceable? (lost heirlooms, memorabilia, lives, pets, and coastline to name a few).  A loss is just a loss.

But didn’t WW2 get us out of the great depression you ask?

After WW2 our nation took off because of pent up demand. There was enormous demand for consumer items that could not be realized during the war because of rationing. Also, we were one of the few intact industrial economies so we gained a large share of foreign trade as well.

But if the Keynesians are correct then we could get the same amount of stimulus today by building battleships and aircraft carriers and then just sinking them.

I admit that I have been guilty of this myself, and I apologize. But let’s just cool it ok?  First of all, we don’t even know who is running yet.  In the second place, there is lot’s of time for candidates to either (a) gain more name recognition (b) connect with the nation or (c) gain more “electability”.

So next time someone  wants to promote a candidate that they prefer, think twice before you either come in with both arms swinging, or else use his diary to promote someone else.  

As usual, polite discussion and asking questions are always appropriate.  Accusations and name calling are not.

Thank you.

Rick Perry is a popular and successful governor who is being challenged by an ex-mayor, Bill White, who left his city with some huge financial problems. (his replacement, Democrat Annise Parker has been much more conservative and has had to slash the cities budget).  Nevertheless, the race is very close.  Recent polls of likely voters have Perry up by only four points, and this in a historic anti-Democrat atmosphere.

Now part of this can be simply Perry fatigue. Perry has been in office a long time. But I am convinced that this is also a result of changing demographics. And I am not just talking about the huge growth in the Hispanic vote, Texas is also being colonized by people who have fled areas of low employment, most notably California. Those who have been residents for six months can start voting.

In the House races Republicans will probably not pick up more than one or two seats, that is partly because they already hold most of the seats, but it is also because Democrats are expected to pick up at least two seats in areas where Hispanic voting has increased.  If you look at a list of Democratic candidates running for the House, you will see that fully half of those names are Spanish.

Now the Hispanic vote is not as monolithicly Democrat as is the Black vote, but it is fairly reliable. The Republican party has no choice but to reach out to Hispanic voters, and run more Hispanic candidates.

How do you reach out to Hispanics?  In my dealings with my Latin neighbors and coworkers I think they are worried about jobs more than anything else.  But they are also very culturaly (or socially if you will) conservative. So values issues have a lot of pull.  We should never pander or offer giveaways like the Democrats do, but money should be spent, and a special emphasis placed, upon getting our messege out to the Hispanic community in the border states, and recruiting Hispanic candidates.

Otherwise we could eventually lose the border states.

What I saw was pretty bad. There was not much scoring, but when there was the referees called it back.

There was the most horrible flopping and play acting. I even saw a guy who looked like he popped a blood capsule. It was just like watching professional wrestling.

There were the horrible annoying vuvuzelas.(hey at least this time they didn’t riot and kill a lot of people)

And the ridiculous childish announcers and their idiotic GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!

In one word, immature.

Finally to all those who say I am an ignorant, close minded American, let us put the shoe on the other foot.

Americans like a large variety of sports. What is wrong with the other nations that they have never expanded their horizons beyond soccer? Why are they so backwards and narrow minded?

I have long held out that Obama had yet to prove that he was as bad or as incompetent as Carter, but I tell you, it’s pretty damn close.

Nation faces $1,000,000 deficit

But as you’ve undoubtedly heard, newspapers and magazines are having a rough time. Journalism is in trouble at the very moment when we can’t afford to take our eye off what’s happening in Washington and around the world. So I’ve been asked by our publishing team to ask you for help by becoming one of our Nation Associates.

SO they say they are in dire straights, The truth is this magazine faces a hostile environment and a million dollar deficit.

Really what hostile environment is that? The free market? This just goes to show that leftism is only popular when it is out of power. Because once these people get a little power people quickly remember what they were like.

Well what would you think would be the mindset of people in the western world if all of the following happened in a twenty year period?

Attempted assasinations of the heads of state of Spain, Germany, the USA, and Belgium. And attempts against several British ministers and officials.

Successful assasinations of the leaders of the USA, France, Russia, Greece, Portugal, Spain twice, and Austria twice.

As well as bombings with multiple deaths in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Paris, London, and Barcelona.

Well all of this happened. It was the work of a loose cabal who adhered to a variety of versions of Anarchism. Anarchism was (is) an extremely foolish idea that all government is offensive and bad. Although there was a peculiar group of Anarchists who were also surprisingly marxists. (proving that if you are an idiot you will fall for all sorts of bad ideas).

The anarchists worked to use terror to bring down governments, needless to say their efforts had the opposite effect. It made them pariahs to the common people and caused governments to greatly expand their surveillance and control of the population.

How did the governments of the time deal with the anarchist threat? Well, they didn’t have to, events, (primarily the First World War) caused the anarchist movement to lose steam and fizzle out.

However, our government reacted to the threat in a very energetic manner. Anarchists were arrested and detained on no other suspicion but that they advocated anarchism. The Anarchist lecturer Emma Goldman was thrown out of the country.

A few people protested these actions but they were not all that controversial. More controversial was the arrest and conviction of Saccho and Vanzeti for a killing and robbery. But that is only because the radical left took up their cause. There was never much real doubt that Sacco was guilty, Vanzetti may have been innocent of the murders, but certainly knew about it and was at any rate in possession of weapons and explosives.

I think that these sort of waves of violence and bizarre religions and ideologies will from time to time sweep upon and test the civilized nations of the world. They just have to be dealt with from a position of strength and a lack of fear until the wave passes.

Then an agency of the justice department created for this reason, is ordered to immediately begin to put the solution, or a better one, into place. Meaning they could order other departments of the government to change their procedures or stop certain practices.

Then, the person or persons who presented the report will be rewarded, let us say, 3% of the savings for the next ten years. That could be a whole lot of money.

Furthermore the DOJ will see their funding increase and will receive bonuses, the more Federal money they save. This sets up a case of the government fighting itself, which is a good thing.

It should be noted that something like this was done before, way back in the civil war, and it worked pretty well.