Bush hatred and Obama euphoria

This is an excellent article about what is going on behind the hatred of Bush and the euphoria over Obama being elected. I do think that politics has turned into a search for redeemers and villains more so than looking for good managers. It's an odd thing if you can get a perspective far enough away.

Political entrepreneurs

A really nice piece from Cato...

"I was asked by a radio host more than once this week what I thought of the fact that some big business leaders were standing by President Obama in his pursuit of the gargantuan “stimulus” package. There is an unfortunate public perception that supporters of free markets are knee-jerk supporters of anything that could be perceived as benefiting “big business.” As the thinking apparently goes, because free marketers favor business, and members of the business community favor the stimulus, shouldn’t free marketers therefore favor the stimulus?

Hardly. In his book, The Myth of the Robber Barons, historian Burton Folsom differentiates between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs:"

There is a huge difference between those two. Market entrepreneurs innovate and compete on services and quality of the goods they produce. Political entrepreneurs lobby the government to "protect" them. Protect them from what? From competition, the friend of the consumer and the enemy of the business owner.

Any time you see a large company, or an industry group putting their weight behind legislation be on guard, especially if it will cost them money. Inevitably, the legislation will have been worth every penny they invested in it to get it passed...

Technorati Tags:
bailout, economics, free trade, freedom, libertarian, obama, politics

Teenage girls

I was totally flummoxed by girls when I was a teenager. My entire high school life was spent being stunned by their beauty and confused by their insanity. Facebook has given me an interesting experiment, I can now converse with women that I got real quiet around in my teen years and haven't talked to in 20 years.

I'm a lot more comfortable around women now, I'm no longer intimidated by their femaleness. Now I pride myself on being able to talk to any woman, especially the ones I think are attractive. Talking to people at work for all of those years has really helped in that regard. Anyway, I've learned some interesting things about those girls back then that I was not able to see then.

Not a single one that I have talked to believed that they were attractive back then, not a one! And to think I was intimidated by their beauty! Man, I wonder how different our lives in high school would have been if I could have worked up the courage to tell them what I thought. I think the best I could ever do was compliment someone on their hair or clothes or something like that, I never told them that they were beautiful. Pity, it sounds like they could have used it.

Of course the other thing that I have learned was that they really were insane. Adolescence isn't easy for anyone, but I think it hits girls harder than guys. I'm shocked at some of the stories I've heard, the cattiness, the meanness, the rage. My experience was mostly of frustration, but I never witnessed the level of meanness that I've been hearing about.

I guess I was lucky. Maybe I'm doubly lucky in the fact that it doesn't look like I'll ever have a teenage daughter :-) Ladies, try to remember what it was like being a teenager when your kids get to that age. I don't envy parents at all. Puberty was bad enough once, I don't think I'd want to experience it, even vicariously, again...

This is what I was hoping for from Obama

This article is what I, and many other people were looking for from Obama. Imagine, a leader saying that the future is important! It is a relief to hear that he thinks that people in the middle east are important. Honestly, I think that W probably thought so to, but he never actually said it. That's a big deal. There are plenty of people over here (believe it or not) that don't think that W is a monster, so they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, not so over in the middle east.

Anyway, a televised interview on an Arabic station is a huge first step, let's hope he'll continue the healing process.

Technorati Tags:
islam, middle east, obama, politics

Ads on Google and Facebook

I keep seeing ads online about how I can get my part of the bailout money that is coming. I've also heard some tongue in cheek ads on local radio alluding to the upcoming "stimulus" and how those companies wishe that their bailout money would come. It all reminds me of a certain economist from the 1800's.

'Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it."

It saddens me to think that the US is devolving into a place where the government is where money comes from. It is the predominant view in Yemen and other places like it, is the US like that?

Technorati Tags:
bastiat, economics, money

Isaac, why is it always about the money?

There is, among some of my friends, the belief that I am all about money. I do talk about it quite a bit on this blog and most of my economics posts seem to center around money. I guess I only have myself to blame for not making things clearer.

Most of us do not value money for its own sake, but for the possibilities that it represents. When you have x amount of dollars, you can turn that amount into a computer, a hamburger, a charitable donation, a trip, education, or any number of other things. Naturally, we all prefer having more things/experiences, or at least higher quality things/experiences than less.

What people seem to discount (no pun intended) is how we get it. The bottom line is that we can only get money by doing something that other people want. The potential for making money is directly related to how great a want we satisfy. Working, and profiting from that work, is a benefit to society. As you profit, you employ others for your wants. Other people can make your lunch, drive you to work, clean your suit, educate your children, or whatever comes into your mind.

This is the real definition of a wealthy society. People use dollars to satisfy their wants and they can only get them by satisfying the wants of others. The more people that do this, the wealthier we are. Not because of the dollars, but because of the services and products we make for others.

Too many people make an artificial distinction between monetary freedom and "personal" freedom. They are the same thing, this is what economics is all about. Somehow people have gotten it into their heads that things like taxation and education are not related. They think that we can discuss health care and civil liberties as separate topics. No one seems to see the connection.

If you restrict things on the monetary side of things, you will eventually impact things on the freedom side of things. Imagine that taxes have to go up in order to pay for some things. The money you pay in taxes is diffused throughout the country so you will inevitably not see the direct effect of your money paid to the government. So you end up getting less money for the same amount of work, or you work more for the same amount of money. Monetary issues have taken away some of your time, liberty has been lost to a monetary measure. The same thing happens with any regulation that increases the cost of a product or service. We must work more for the same benefit...

If you curtail liberties, it will eventually impact the wealth of the nation. Remember, wealth is determined by people satisfying wants and needs of other people. For people to achieve their potential, they must be free to pursue what is important to them. Remember, there are always two people behind every transaction. They must be free to pursue what is important to them, and be free to pursue what is important to others. Doing both of those things is the very definition of wealth, you can't have wealth without freedom.

In order for society to function, there needs to be some limits, I'll admit that. But I tend to lean more towards things like prohibiting murder and leaving things like marriage, food, recreational chemical usage, etc. up to the individual.

So the thing that I have as my primary subject in my posts is not money, but freedom. Money is usually a good short hand method for talking about freedom and liberties in general. Most people tend to only look at liberty OR money, I want people to reconnect those concepts...

Technorati Tags:
libertarian, freedom, money

People hear what they want to hear (Obama is a Muslim, etc.)

I had dinner with a friend of mine last night and she recounted a conversation she had with someone that was working on her car. He wasn't real happy about Obama being elected and she asked him why. He told her of some of his fears like, "He is going to release all the people in Gitmo and let them out on the street, he's going to give away all of our money and raise taxes, etc." But the kicker was that Obama is a muslim! Now, my friend is an ordained Episcopal priest and lived, for a while, very close to where Obama went to church in Chicago. She asked the car guy to take her word for it when she said that Obama was a Christian. He just looked at her like she was nuts and said, "But he said he was during the inauguration!"

As you all know, I have some problems with Obama, but I like to think that any criticisms I level against him are based on his actions and agenda. I don't make things up out of thin air... It was pretty obvious that this guy had heard rumors of Obama being muslim (his middle name is Husain, hello, how much more obvious can you get?) and then listened for something to confirm it for him. I have no idea what to do about people like that... All you can do is keep telling him no...

Technorati Tags:
obama, politics

Language in worship, who needs it?

I have been going to a book church book club (despite not belonging to that church) and we got onto an interesting topic. One of the ladies there mentioned that she was looking for a church but every time she went to one she became uncomfortable with what was being said. I feel exactly the same way about being in a church, so I don't go. Unlike her, I don't feel any particular urge to be with other people for stuff like that.

But what do you do if you are drawn to that but keep getting put off by what is said? I suppose you could keep looking, but there is no perfect fit for someone like that unless she started her own church. I had what I thought was a pretty stupid idea at first, but I've warmed up to it now.

I enjoy some operas. The music is powerful, the singing is amazing, and a story os told by the music and the actions on stage even when I don't understand the words. I absolutely hate musical theatre like your typical broadway show. What's the difference? I can understand the words in the broadway show and they drive me nuts. They are emotionally overwrought, sappy, and just plain stupid. It turns out the same thing is true in opera if you translate the lyrics. So if I knew German, Italian, or French well enough to follow the operas, I'd probably hate them too.

My point is that sometimes some vagueness around the edges will enhance the experience. If you feel a presence in a church because of the architecture, the actions of the parishioners, the music, the decorations, etc. but are put off by the idiot up in the pulpit, perhaps opera is the answer. I suggested that she go to a service in a different language, one in which she will understand very little. Let the spirit of the occasion sink in without the details and see what happens.

Surprisingly enough, she said that her most powerful spiritual experience occurred in a situation when she was chanting with other people in a language she didn't understand. So now maybe she'll go to a Greek Orthodox service or something. Maybe the Catholics had something with the Latin mass after all...

Technorati Tags:
catholic, Christianity, music, religion

No hockey for a week!

I effing hate the all star break. Both of my favorite sports have them, and they drive me nuts. I think that I'd actually be happier if they would just drop the pretense of the game and just say that all the people involved need a week off.

At least the game itself can be interesting in baseball. Double play combinations notwithstanding, there really isn't a lot of teamwork involved so guys can play their normal game. More importantly, there isn't that much physical impact in baseball, so they can play all out in the all star game without much downside (although Ray fosse might disagree). They have also put a small stake in the outcome of the game, whichever league wins gets the home field advantage in the world series.

It's very different in hockey. Hockey requires lots of contact, sometimes violent contact to be what it can be. Any given play into the boards can result in an injury of a varying degree. Since there is nothing at stake during the all star game, there really isn't any reason to risk injury by playing normally. In other words, there is every possibility of getting hurt and no reason for it. The result is a game that resembles hockey, but without a lot of defense or teamwork. In other words, it isn't much of a game...

I do watch at least some of the baseball all star games, but I never bother with the hockey one. All it does is remind me that I can't watch the real thing for 3 or 4 more days...

Worried about where our money is going in the bailout?

So is Russ Roberts over at Cafe Hayek. Like a true Hayekian, he understands the real information comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. This bailout bill is massive, there is no way any one person, or even a group can keep tabs on this and actually track where the money goes. So there is both a Wiki and a blog set up in order to take advantage of the wisdom of crowds. Ultimately, they will try to use these tools to keep track of the money that is disbursed by letting all people participate.

It's an ambitious project, but it's really the only hope we have of keeping track of things. This is also a non-partisan thing. Even though the democrats are the ones advancing this, I'm sure there will be many bones thrown the republicans' way to grease the political wheels. Pork is an affliction shared by both parties...

So feel free to keep tabs on them, and if you know anything, or know anyone that would know something, please participate!!!

My top ten historical events in my lifetime

I've heard some people talking about history today, and I was wondering where today fits into my idea of historical events. Obama makes my top ten, but there are some other things that take precedence. I'm limiting myself to things that happened in my lifetime but not to things that I recognized their importance at the time.

10) The take over and taking of hostages in the American embassy in Tehran 1979
9) W's unjustified and illegal invasion of Iraq
8) Obama is elected president
7) The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty 1979
6) 9/11/2001
5) China adopts market reforms under Deng Xiaoping starting in 1978
4) Pol Pot giving up power and fleeing into the jungle during the Cambodian-Vietnamese war 1979
3) The end of Apartheid in South Africa 1n 1990
2) The fall of the Berlin Wall 1989
1) The collapse of the Soviet Union 1991

That was tougher than I thought it would be. I had the top three pretty well nailed down, but I thought that the end of the Vietnam war and the assassination of Sadat would make the list. My top 5 had immediate and important effects to millions and millions of people. Number 6 is probably ranked too high on an absolute scale, but it did have quite an impact on me. Hmm, the more I think about it, the less I think Obama's place on my list will last. Right now we are all a flutter with the departing of Bush and the inauguration of the first black president, but if we take a step back, it really doesn't compare with the things that come after it on my list...

Well, he's made history, now let's see what he can do. For all our sakes, I hope he does a good job.

Competition and Predictably Irrational

I've picked up another book. It's called "Predictably Irrational." The author uses examples from experimental economics to teach us how we differ from how some economic models might suggest or assume we act. So far, there have been some interesting results, his discussion about the concept of "free" in particular is thought provoking.

One chapter is entitled "The fallacy of supply and demand." Naturally, this caught my eye. He uses some experiments to show how ideas of what things are worth initially can be more or less arbitrarily set by advertising or other clever sales techniques. Ok, so far so good. The results are pretty convincing, but he doesn't stop there. He then extrapolates these results into the idea that people's thoughts on value are easily manipulated and therefore we can't rely on markets and free markets ideas in general to bring about equitable trades since everyone is under the sway of the advertisers.

He's way off. He left out a very important aspect of supply and demand, perhaps the most important one out there... competition. I am fully willing to believe that when confronted with a new thing, we don't have a good idea of what it should cost or what value that thing has to us. His experiments show that that concept of value is easily skewed by all sorts of things. But a rational person doesn't usually buy the first thing he sees, he checks around for prices. It is competition that tells us what we can expect to pay for something. Once we know that, we can figure out how we value that thing.

It isn't clear to me what supply and demand even means without taking competition into account. So his chapter certainly doesn't show any "fallacy" with that concept. Rational people check prices, who knew?

Why I write this blog

A quote from Ludwig von Mises:

"Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man's human existence...

There is no means by which anyone can evade his personal responsibility. Whoever neglects to examine to the best of his abilities all the problems involved voluntarily surrenders his birthright to a self-appointed elite of supermen. In such vital matters blind reliance upon "experts" and uncritical acceptance of popular catchwords and prejudices is tantamount to the abandonment of self-determination and to yielding to other people's domination. As conditions are today, nothing can be more important to every intelligent man than economics. His own fate and that of his progeny is at stake...

Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that economics cannot remain an esoteric branch of knowledge accessible only to small groups of scholars and specialists. Economics deals with society's fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen."

I got this from the blog at the Mises institute. I recommend it highly.

I made caramel!

With all this popcorn around, what better thing to make than carmel corn? It went pretty smoothly, it's in the oven right now, I'll be able to taste it in 20 minutes or so.

I gotta tell you, this was the first thing I ever made that scared me. I had heard many bad stories about burns with candy making and that was what I was doing essentially. Not only was it hot, but it was also sticky. So if some got on me, it would burn and burn... I've used industrial deep friers before, and I know they were quite a bit hotter than 250 degrees, but they were never as enticing as this stuff was. It was just calling out to me to taste it as it bubbled away...

I managed to resist it and pour it into the bowl with the popcorn without burning myself. Once I had transferred it into the oven and let the remnants in the mixing bowl cool down I tasted it. MMMMM, what is better than caramel really? This was much better than those ones wrapped in plastic in the store. Of course it was also much stickier as well. This is never, ever coming out of my teeth. I think I ruined a brillo pad cleaning up too...

Anyway, I already consider this a success. Here's the recipe if you're interested.

UPDATE!

OK, I took it out of the oven and let it cool a little. That's important, I panicked a bit when it first came out because it was still all gooey, but just a few minutes later, it got crunchy again... It's good! I had a few issues where the caramel pooled a bit so those pieces are a little gooey still, but that's alright. It's also more buttery than I am used to, but butter on popcorn is a good combo. I'll definitely do this again!

Popcorn!

There aren't many things as wonderful as good popcorn. One of the things I did for Christmas was to order some good popcorn. I'm not talking about the microwave stuff or the stuff you can find in the store, I'm talking good popcorn. Here's what I got:

I pop it up on the stove and it is wonderful! As an added bonus, the pot I'm using has a transparent top, so I get to watch it too... I've found that if I add popcorn salt to it before it pops, I don't need any butter! No really, it is that good. Finally, a snack I don't feel guilty about...

Who says I can't cook? LOL!

Star Wars as you've never seen it before

This is amazing...



My friend Jason is the one asking the questions. The "Hans?" bit is brilliant...

From 1850

"The delusion of the day is to enrich all classes at the expense of each other; it is to engender plunder under pretense of organizing it."

Quite so, some things never change...

Gold, money, and economic worries

I just finished reading "What is seen and Unseen" (read some of my previous posts about that). The basic idea is that every time the government wants to do something, the government has to take the money from people first and we need to pay attention to that. It's a nice way of organizing your thoughts about government spending, but it isn't overly accurate now.

Back in Bastiat's day, all currency was backed by something, usually a metal like gold or silver. In other words, every pound note distributed had a corresponding pound of silver to go with it. The government could only distribute as much money as it had in metal reserves. Today, we have what is called fiat money. It is worth something because the government says it is and everyone goes along with it. Nowadays, the government can make all the money it wants whenever it wants. See this post for an explanation about why that is bad...

There is a small, but vocal group that says that we need to go back to a metal standard in order to avoid the problems that fiat money can lead to. That has some appeal, but it is never going to happen. Milton Friedman had some ideas on how to make fiat money behave a lot like backed currency. A big part of that involved taking the discretionary power of fixing the value of money away from the Fed. That isn't going to happen either. There are some technical issues involved that I won't go into, but there are some more pressing issues. Back then, money was synonymous with cash. It was easy to keep track of how much money there was because there was only one kind. These days, there is far more electronic money than cash, how would you back that up with anything? I worry that current spending habits are incompatible with backed money.

The more I read, the more I think I should be buying gold....

The essence of economics

I received the Bastiat collection the other day (published by Mises.org) and as expected, I am totally blown away by it. He proves that you can get the essence of economics without having to be a mathematician or spend an eternity in college studying it. This is his introduction to the first essay in the book, the famous, "That which is seen, and that which is not seen."

"In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

The same thing, of course, is true of health and morals. Often, the sweeter the first fruit of a habit, the more bitter are its later fruits: for example, debauchery, sloth, prodigality. When a man is impressed by the effect that is seen and has not yet learned to discern the effects that are not seen, he indulges in deplorable habits, not only through natural inclination, but deliberately.

This explains man's necessarily painful evolution. Ignorance surrounds him at his cradle; therefore, he regulates his acts according to their first consequences, the only ones that, in his infancy, he can see. It is only after a long time that he learns to take account of the others. Two very different masters teach him this lesson: experience and foresight. Experience teaches efficaciously but brutally. It instructs us in all the effects of an act by making us feel them, and we cannot fail to learn eventually, from having been burned ourselves, that fire burns. I should prefer, in so far as possible, to replace this rude teacher with one more gentle: foresight. For that reason I shall investigate the consequences of several economic phenomena, contrasting those that are seen with those that are not seen."

That is the essence of economics. Much of what he has to say is relevent to the current machinations of Washington DC. Pretty good for someone that was writing in the early 1800's!

Books!

I received several books for Christmas and I've been impressed with them. Not only are they good books in the sense that they are good to read, but they are nice objects in and of themselves.

There's something about a nice book that makes the reading experience more enjoyable. Being a hardback isn't enough. Most hardbacks out there are really nothing more than a paperback binding with stiff covers. A good hardback will be stitched together. Having a good spine that will withstand repeated readings is part of being a good book. Of course the legibility of the type, the feel of the paper, and the tactile feel of the thing helps too.

I got my Bastiat collection yesterday (available here online. WARNING, this is a large file...). It has a textbook kind of feel to the cover (which isn't a bad thing) and a they did a great job on the printing and the paper they used. Be prepared for extensive quotes from this in posts to come...

I also got "The New Seeds of Contemplation" by Thomas Merton. This book is precious! It is just the right size, somewhat smaller than the typical hardback book, cloth bound, and looks great on the inside. It even has a ribbon stitched into the binding (like a Bible) to mark your page. It turns out that Shambhala has put out 4 of Merton's books like this and I haven't read any of them! I can see some more of them in my future...

On a lighter note...

I also got some more of the Peanuts collection by Fanatgraphics. Wow, what a great job they're doing. There have been various Peanuts collections done before, but they are publishing ALL of the strips Charles Schultz did in order. For those of us that love Peanuts, it is a dream come true. The books are wonderful as well and will withstand repeated readings with ease. It was a great Christmas for books! I'm going to hold onto these for a long time...

Why is Obama spreading fear?

His remarks today basically amount to, "OMG! We need to do something now or else things will crash and burn! We need to do it now now now!!! Can't you see how bad things are getting?"

A big part of consumer confidence is just that, confidence. If the next president, this so-called agent of hope and change, is saying that the end is near, are we so surprised that people aren't spending money? Why on earth would they think that now is a good time to make purchases like houses, cars, etc. when the next president is saying we are on the brink of disaster?

So what should he do Isaac? Well, he should reassure us that the economy is going through a change, that things will not be the way they were before. But once those things that need to happen do happen (GM cough cough), the economy will pick up again. Even if that's not the case, that is the message that he needs to spread, not doom and gloom. He doesn't have to campaign anymore, he's got the job.

Of course I know why he's doing this. He sees this recession as a way of promoting his political aims. By making things sound awful, he makes it more likely that his ideas will come to pass because the politicians have to do something... Ugh...

More on Israel and Palastine

Israel bombed a UN school in Gaza killing 40 something people. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. We've all known the capacity that Israel has for overreaction for quite a while. So has Hamas. And yet they, or at least people under their control in Gaza, continued to provoke Israel. I've been told that those rockets really aren't much of a threat, certainly as compared to the Israeli air force. So I see a couple of possible scenarios.

1) The missiles being launched from Gaza do not really pose a real danger to Israel. This means that their launch is completely symbolic.

2) Hamas is actually trying to kill Israelis with those rockets. Of course since they can't aim them very well, the potential targets are more or less at random.

I'm guessing that #2 is more likely. If #1 was the case, the best reaction Israel could have made was to sneer at the attempt. If people are in danger, the political pressure to retaliate would be unbearable. Everyone knows this.

The actual damage those rockets cause is up for debate, but their potential for damage isn't really. As I wrote to a friend of mine, if you are constantly being threatened by an armed lunatic, is it wise to spit on him? What, exactly, will be accomplished by antagonizing him? What will be accomplished when he then uses those weapons to kill bunches of your people?

But they're not idiots, there is a political upside to drawing Israel into a more active war and I'm pretty sure that's why it keeps happening. People tend to paint this as an Israel/Palastine issue when it looks much more like an Israel/Hamas issue. I don't think it's a coincidence that this is happening in Gaza and not in the West Bank. Hamas needs conflict to remain politically viable. Part of me wonders if Hamas needs Palestinian casualties to remain popular... Cynical? Oh yeah, but Fatah doesn't seem to have any of these characteristics and they don't seem to be in the middle of death either. The same goes for the Israelis. There is a lot of popular support for killing Palestinians, so launching the occasional attack pays political dividends. It's a true prisoners dilemma. Breaking the political benefits will end the hostilities...

Oh please...

A friend's facebook status says, "How can a country kill 500 people and get away with it? With other countries backing them? What kind of world do we live in?"

Huh, how bout I ask a few questions myself? "How can a group of people launch missiles at random (not caring who they kill) from a heavily populated area? How can a group of people do that and then be outraged at the civilian deaths that happen when the retaliatory strikes come? How can people launch attacks from populated areas with the understanding that the civilians are a shield? Do they expect to be able to launch attacks with impunity? No, they don't, and no, they aren't surprised with the casualties. They expect them, that is what is so repugnant to me. If you want to die for a cause, well then fine, but do not put other people in the firing line!

This is a war, people are going to die. I'm not trying to make light of the problems over there, people dying is never good. I do object to the one sided approach that a lot of people have when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians. We also need to keep things in perspective. If there was a clash in Africa with this many people killed, it might make the news, but there would not be any outrage to speak of. Why is that?

For the record, I think both sides perpetuate this, but that's what the politics dictates. Neither side can be seen as being weak, so violence begets violence. Neither side has the right to be outraged, both sides knew exactly what was going to happen.

When a tax cut isn't a tax cut...

I've heard that Obama wants to use "tax cuts" in order to stimulate the economy. That's sound enough, when people have more money they either spend it or save it. Either way is good for the economy. When the government has it, it tends to get wasted. In addition to that, it is not spent in the ideal way by the people that make the money. In other words, let's say that person x really wants to take a trip to Hawaii, but since he has to pay income taxes, he can't do it. This may not sound like a big deal, but if that money is not supporting Hawaian tourist services (i.e. something that people actually want) and is instead supporting, say, Lockheed Martin, that's quite a distortion. That also goes for charity BTW.... Multiply that by 200 million or so and you can see how screwed up the distribution of money is...

So OK, tax cuts are a good thing, so what's the big deal? Here's the big deal, it is only a tax cut if you both cut the taxes people pay AND lower spending. You see, every dollar the government spends it gets through taxes. So any deficit the government runs is really just deferred taxes. It sounds as though Obama wants to cut taxes AND raise spending. That is, effectively, a tax INCREASE. Any additional deficit spending is an increase in taxes at some point. It will have to be paid back at some point. And yes, inflation isn't technically a tax, but it might as well be, it has essentially the same effect...

Sports Jerseys

There is something evocative about classic sports jerseys. Baseball has the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the Dodgers. Classic and iconic. Basketball jerseys have never been anything special, and football uniforms have always been dominated by the helmets. The Actual football jerseys are either no big deal or silly looking... Don't get me started on soccer jerseys, they look like race cars with all of their ads...

The one sport that doesn't get enough credit for classic looks is hockey. My team, the capitals, have a pretty tacky jersey IMO, always have... But there are some classics. The number one, the most iconic perhaps in any sport (certainly in Canada) is the jersey (or sweater as they call it in hockey) of the Montreal Canadiens. Check it out...

The current version dates from the 1950's. In the hockey world, this team is the king. They have more championships than any other professional sports team in North America. To me, it is a graphic masterpiece steeped in history. Another from that era is from Chicago...

This one also dates from the 50's and was recently worn in the "Winter Classic" today. This one has the same iconic look, but it also, as my dad noted, looks tough. There is also a newer jersey with the classic look, this one is from the Minnesota Wild.

After looking at these a little more, I wonder if my impression of "toughness" comes from their similarity to some rugby jerseys I've seen.

In any case, I would wear any of these even though I'm not a fan of any of those teams. There is something very graphic about them and they are tied to a feel from the sport that I like. So why is my team's jersey so bad in comparison?

Happy New Year!

I'm up early this new year for some reason, guess it's as good a way to start it as another. Like every year of my life, I'm looking forward to this one. I don't have any resolutions other than this, I resolve to let things go. By that I mean that I am not going to allow myself to become depressed over the economy and people's beliefs in how to fix it. It has been too easy to get angry over the disconnect between what people think the problem is and what they think the solution is. I can't do anything about the political/economic machinery churning away and people's blind faith in it despite what I see as its obvious failings. All I can do is try to make the most out of what I've got. I am resolving to regain my optimism. It has faded a bit over the last 6 months. I think having too much extra time to think about things is mostly to blame for that. Well, it's time to get busy with life again...

Oh, I'll still rail against what I see as obvious problems, don't worry about that! I have to keep in mind that all I'll be able to do is educate people. Things will turn out the way they will, bad policy will have bad results... In the same vein, bad habits will have bad results as well. I need to take care of the things that I can do and ensure that what results from my activities is good. Insha'alla I will remember this throughout the year and keep my sanity intact.

In some ways all years are basically the same. All that really changes is what we think of them. Here's to a good attitude for the rest of this year and for all the years to come. Happy new year!