Economics for the Long Run- Wall Street Journal

Česky: Oficiální portrét amerického prezidenta...

President Ronald Reagan

In this short article by Stanford Economics professor and senior fellow John Taylor it’s correctly pointed out that continuous short-term government intervention in the economy produces more bad than good, no matter the intentions, and no matter what party is in the White House. These policies have been most effectively and dramatically illustrated by Ronald Reagan, and continued with Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577166842399752720.html

Not mentioned in the article is that these hands-off principles originally were put forth a long time ago by 18th Century Economist Adam Smith in his seminal book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, better known as “The Wealth of Nations”.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Please Share this blog if you find it interesting; others may as well.

War on the Middle Class is all Friendly Fire.

“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”- George Santayana, 19th Century writer, philosopher

Have you ever driven through an old neighborhood where the houses were mostly constructed in the 1920’s?

Old Neighborhood

Seattle's Queen Anne Hill

What did you see? What you saw from that era of American consumption is very large homes; Bungalow styles, Colonial revival, Ranch style and others. In Seattle the Leschi neighborhood and the area east of Franklin High School give adequate representation of the kind of opulence home owners enjoyed in the time of Prohibition,

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United State...

President Calvin Coolidge

Calvin Coolidge, and a rising stock market.

History being our teacher we look back on that time and know what followed; a record stock market crash, increased taxes from the Federal Government and a depression that shook the foundation of our country. So what do you see in the neighborhoods where the houses were constructed in the 1930s? The answer is nothing. There are no neighborhoods built in the 1930s. Like today construction ground to a complete halt because of the depression leaving nothing to look back on.

World War II took us out of the depression, but because of the diverting of resources home construction didn’t recover in this country for five more years. When it resumed in the late 40s and continued through the 50s and 60s what was being built? The Lake Hills community in Bellevue, WA is a fair representation of late 50s early 60s construction. I grew up there.

Small homes from 1950s

With very few exceptions it’s a community made up almost entirely of ramblers with a size seldom exceeding 1200-1500 square feet. They were easy to construct and inexpensive. And the Eisenhower and Kennedy 50s and 60s gave America a universal image of happiness and wealth. In my case I thought my house was a palace growing up. After my parents divorced our single parent home, led by my Dad, became a 1100 square foot rented duplex. The whole neighborhood was duplexes, so once again I didn’t feel deprived.

Slowly through the 70s the houses got bigger, introducing the God-awful split-level

I always hated Split-levels

. But even these were generally no more than 2000 square feet.

By the time the 90s come around everything has exploded.

A 1990s McMansion

Newly constructed homes have to have a minimum of three bedrooms, laundry room, office, play room and foyer. The home I grew up in would be swallowed by my current homes downstairs alone. And with the added size came an awful lot of opulence too. Granite countertops now are staples in even the most humble abode. In the past 20 years we’ve furnished these McMansions with leather furniture and tile floors. And if our home didn’t have the amenities we desired we would refinance our mortgage or get a second mortgage, taking equity out of our personally largest investment. Taking equity out of your home was something our parents and grandparents wouldn’t dream of doing except in the most dire financial emergency. Now we do it to finance a trip to Cancun.

The 2008 financial collapse was largely caused by an increasing number of Americans failing to pay their mortgage; mortgages for big, opulent homes too many flat-out couldn’t afford. But creative financial instruments were put before us and Presto! We could suddenly afford these ridiculous houses. The dreaded ARM loan became a buzz word and the source of all our consternation. Nobody put a gun to anyone’s head asking them to sign these unwise financial documents. But like lemmings lining up for our own fatal plunge Americans from every corner of our nation made the dive.

The expenses our parents faced on a monthly basis included a rent or mortgage payment on a fixed-rate 30 year mortgage. They included heating bills, water, sewer, life insurance, car insurance, phone, food and gas. It included little else. Today all those expenses have exploded. Gas prices have doubled just since Barrack Obama became President. Also now our monthly expenses include all of what’s just been mentioned PLUS cable tv, internet, DVRs, cell phones

English: Mobile phone evolution Русский: Эволю...

, workout-clubs or gyms, video game networking, 50 inch TVs and more. And these are just regular monthly expenses. These are expenses earlier generations couldn’t fathom; nearly all of them unnecessary extravagances. Can you say with a straight face that you honestly NEED 200 different television channels? Is it really necessary that each individual in the household be available for a telephone (cell phone) call 24-7? We have five different telephones in my four person home. We could have six but I fought my wife against getting our 13-year-old daughter her own phone.

When dollars are tight and the bills aren’t being met too many enviously scream at those who have more and shout “No fair!”. But when you look around at what even the poorest in our society enjoy compared to our forefathers, and compared to the rest of the world, for that matter, shouldn’t the finger of blame be pointed at the man or woman in the mirror when cash flow is not there for you? Doesn’t history show us that when you build up and up and up and live beyond your means a correction is inevitable? And doesn’t history tell us that living humbly coincided with happy times and progress for our society?

I don’t wish anyone to live uncomfortably. I want us all to have a rich and fabulous existence. I want us all to thrive. I’m just saying thriving could be a lot easier if we look back from whence we came.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Share this blog if you find it interesting. Others may as well.

The Republican I will vote for is…?

Republican presidential candidates are picture...

Who we gonna pick

It’s getting down to crunch time and I haven’t fully determined in my mind who it is I would vote for in the GOP race for President of the United States. By crunch time I mean…weaker ineffectual campaigns are getting crunched and eliminated from even appearing on the ballots of upcoming primaries and caucuses, and they are dropping out. In my case I can’t actually vote for a candidate until March 3rd when Washington State has its caucuses and by then it’s not likely to be a contest at all. But since my decision has never been fully made I thought I would ruminate about the remaining five candidates.

Let’s start with who I won’t vote for.

Ron Paul taking questions in Manchester, NH

Crazy Ron Paul

I won’t vote for Ron Paul. The Congressman from Texas last night during the South Carolina debate looked every bit the crack pot that I’ve maintained he is for four years. His foreign policy is a dangerous joke. And what is really offensive is the fact that his ardent followers have actually compared Paul to Jesus. I’m not making this up. I’ve seen it on Facebook. If by some miraculous disaster Paul actually did win the Republican nomination I would have to vote for Barrack Obama.

When Governor Rick Perrymade his late entrance into the field of Presidential hopefuls I was very enthusiastic and hopeful.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas speaking at the R...

Perry came in too late.

His long record of success in Texas and his strong Christian beliefs had me thinking he could really be something special as President. But unfortunately he got such a late start in the race that he was clearly unprepared and overwhelmed at first. He has clearly improved his debate performances. Last night I thought he was terrific at articulating some strong Conservative ideas, and he didn’t look like a moron when he went after Mitt Romney about release of his tax records. His early gaffes I think I can comfortably say can be attributed to lack of preparedness. And in a way there is something endearing about the fact that Perry hadn’t been thinking he would run for President for years like some (Romney); and as such his entrance to the race, later than any of the candidates we’ve seen these last 7-8 months, left him flat-footed and ill prepared. Alas, it’s all gonna be moot soon. I strongly suspect Perry will drop out of the race following Saturday’s primary in South Carolina; as he probably should for the good of the party and the Conservative movement.

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

Mitt Romney

That leaves Senator Rick Santorum, Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Governor Mitt Romney. I could happily vote for any of the three. I think Romney will win the nomination. I don’t believe Santorum can hang on for much longer, perhaps dropping out after Florida at the end of the month. Money being what it is. I think Gingrich will stick around for a good while primarily because he seems to have a multi-billionaire sugar-daddy who will keep feeding his Super PAC money. But by the time March 3rd and Washington’s caucus comes around…Gingrich may be gone at worst or completely ineffectual at best.

So ultimately I don’t think I’ll have to decide. I think the decision for me and most of the rest of the country will be decided no later than the Nevada caucuses on February 4th. Nevada has a strong Mormon population and Romney is expected to win there handily. Certainly we’ll have no doubt come this year’s Super Tuesday elections March 6th when 10 states have primaries or caucuses. And if I’m right, and I am, and Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee and it will be firmly determined that he is by February 4th and at that point only 5 of our fifty states will have voted…how sad is that?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

What would Martin Luther King say and do?

President Lyndon B. Johnson and Rev. Dr. Marti...

Martin Luther King at White House meet with President Lydon Johnson

On this day when we commemorate the life of the great Martin Luther King Jr. I wonder what he would think of the actions of today’s leaders and of society as a whole. I am conflicted about how I would answer that.

I think its odd how two people can listen to the same thing and hear two different things. There is no question MLK wanted economic equality for all and for aid and assistance being provided for all of the most disadvantaged. “Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.”- Martin Luther King Jr.

In my case the life and speeches of Doctor King left me with one resonating theme, self-reliance and self-determination. Sure he wanted whites to quit oppressing black people, and beating and murdering them as well, by the way. But he mostly wanted to get them out of the way. He wanted black people to have the same economic opportunities of white people and to strive and struggle for their own level of success. “Whatever your life’s work is, do it well. A man should do his job so well that the living, the dead, and the unborn could do it no better.” – MLK

So what would Dr. King think of the Tea Party movement and it’s message of responsible government spending, and individual liberty? Would he embrace the Occupy movement and steer their seemingly rudderless ship? What would he think of Barrack Obama, our nations first black President?

What I’m certain of is that he would be heard and he would not be happy about much of what happens today. I’m sure that the intractable positions taken by Democrats and Republicans in Congress would disgust him and he would urge mutual compromise. I am absolutely certain he would reject Obama’s constant, unrelenting class warfare. And while supporting the Occupy movement I’m sure he would sharpen their message so that they didn’t sound and look like the dirty, ungrateful, whiny sons and daughters of privilege that so many of them appear to be.

What do you think. What would King say and do today. Tell me and let’s make this a discussion in which Martin would be proud.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

No to Gay Marriage. Where’s the Discrimination?

The Seal of Washington, Washington's state seal.

The seal of the State of Washington

So Washington State Governor

English: Photo of , Governor of Washington sin...

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire

Christine Gregoire wants to make our state the seventh in the national to make same-sex marriage legal. Well zippity-do-dah. As if Washington state had slipped far enough off the proverbial liberal cliff already. Now we want to put ourselves in the same category as New York, Massachusetts and the politicians and judges in California. I say the politicians and judges of California because the good people of the Golden State have had the good sense to vote FOUR TIMES to disallow Gay Marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage Rally

Lesbian wedding cake

I’m going to throw a bone to proponents of Gay Marriage. I don’t think there is any doubt that some who oppose Gay Marriage do so for purely hateful and discriminatory reasons. Some people hate gay people for reasons that fall pretty close to why they hate other types of people; because they’re “different”. However, I strongly believe that the most liberal wings of the Democratic party HATE all Conservatives and put just as much logic and reason into such feelings as the discriminatory gay bashers put into their thoughts.

And should  any of our leaders do anything at all to placate either of these extremes? Absolutely not. Sadly, they do all the time. The expression, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”, comes to mind.

Most people oppose legalization of gay marriage. Constant opinion polls and ballot measures have said so repeatedly in the past 10-15 years…which is the only period of time in human history in which the matter was given any consideration whatsoever.

And while I am certain to receive comments and criticisms calling me a hater and homophobe and other colorful descriptions I’m not too worried about it. Speaking of expressions, there is one I heard when I was a child referencing sticks and stones that comes to mind. Because the proponents of gay marriage are so loud and visceral I realize I’m sticking my head in the lions mouth; but hoping, perhaps foolishly, that calm reason and debate can dominate this discussion.

My opposition to gay marriage has more to do with my political philosophy in general. The more government, the more laws the less liberty and freedom. And gay marriage creates more laws and restrictions than it eliminates in addressing a discrimination that does not exist.

I credit radio talk show host

Michael Medved

Michael Medved

Michael Medved for sharpening my point of view on this gay marriage issue. Medved has correctly and repeatedly pointed out that when it comes to gays and lesbians wanting to marry someone of the same-sex as things stand right now THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION. ZERO!

Right now in most of this country a man cannot marry another man and a woman cannot marry another woman. No where does it say that “a GAY man cannot marry another man” or “a LESBIAN cannot marry another woman”. Meaning, a gay man can legally marry anyone that I can legally marry. I am heterosexual. I am married to a woman. Were I single I would be legally barred from marrying:

1. A minor

2. Anyone legally married to another

3. My mother, sister, or first cousin

4. Someone of the same-sex (in my case a man)

I CAN (if I weren’t already married) legally marry anyone else who doesn’t fall into those four categories. Any gay man can do the same. So I ask, where is the discrimination?

A society has a right to establish laws protecting our cumulative values. You can’t just dismiss the laws that prevent you from marrying some other people. It used to be legal for you to marry your first cousin. After divorcing my Mom’s father in 1942 my Grandmother married her first cousin. On at least one other occasion in my own family’s genealogy I found an instance of 1st cousins marrying (let the jokes begin. “That explains a lot”, etc, etc). And while I don’t recall finding instances of legalized minors marrying in my family history I do know of instances where someone as young as 16 was married. Most famously singer Jerry Lee Lewis married his thirteen year old cousin; something that wasn’t terribly uncommon in the deep South as recently as the 1950s (age or 1st cousin). And of course bigamist marriages legally occurred with Mormons in this country in the 19th century, and still exist today, illegally. The point is gay people aren’t being discriminated against on this issue and there are plenty of examples of laws that DO prevent us from marrying  some other people. And those laws apply to all of us, regardless of sexual orientation.

Also, as Presidential candidate

English: Former Congressman Newt Gingrich of G...

Newt Gingrich so adequately pointed out in last Saturday’s New Hampshire debate legalizing gay marriage creates, or expands, discrimination by our governments against many Christian churches. He correctly points out that the Catholic church in Massachusetts had to close down their adoption services because they wouldn’t allow adoption by same-sex couples. The Obama administration has repeatedly threatened to cut off Christian colleges and universities from any federal funding and research grants for opposing the gay agenda. The repercussions of legalizing gay marriage are enormous and go far beyond creating special rights for a small minority class of people.

Homosexuality and gay marriage are opposed by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In only four other countries in the entire world is gay marriage legal. Canada is the only country in the Americas where it is legal.

And as Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA

said in that same debate marriage between a man and a woman has been the ONLY standard by which humans have existed and grown for 3000 years. And we shouldn’t throw 3-thousand years of history out the window so cavalierly; especially when no discrimination exists.

Lastly in the interest of political fairness this isn’t just a GOP or Conservative issue. Democratic President Barrack Obama is on record as being opposed to gay marriage. Washington legislators or voters should say no to Gregoire’s proposal because ultimately this is not a state issue. It’s must be a Federal issue for the simple reason that we cannot have a couple, any couple, being legally married in one state and not so in another. Ultimately, baring a Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court will decide the matter.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.