capitalism – Zombies Uncensored

I’m Not an Oil Addict

Oil fuels better lives by Jeff Jacoby –Boston.com

AS THE DEEPWATER Horizon spill continues to foul the Gulf of Mexico, pundits and policymakers everywhere are once again reaching for the A-word. The BP disaster, proclaims Washington eminence David Gergen, is “a wake-up call to end our addiction to oil.’’ Without “a real climate bill,’’ warn the editors of the Washington Post, “America might be addicted to oil a lot longer than it needs to be.’’

We must “begin to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil,’’ intones Senator John Kerry on ABC, while syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman lambastes “the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.’’

Americans consume oil not because they are “addicted’’ to it, but because it enriches their lives, making possible prosperity, comfort, and mobility that would have been all but unimaginable just a few generations ago. Almost by definition, an addiction is something one is healthier without. But oil-based energy improves human health and reduces poverty — it makes life longer, safer, and better. Addictions debase life. Oil improves and expands it.

Saying America is addicted to oil is idiotic. If America is addicted to oil, then why do we need to hire people to clean up the oil spill? If oil is as addictive as a drug, then carpet crawling would be replaced by beach crawling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Accusing America of oil addiction is offensive. The underlying sentiment implies anyone driving a car has the moral fortitude of a drug addict. I’ve never checked with the gas station attendant when they would be receiving their next shipment of Columbia made gasoline–because the best stuff comes from Columbia, you know.

pumpin it — What whoring for oil might look like

There are no oil-whores or gas-heads and I doubt Americans would ever break into their neighbors home or turn to prostitution in order to fund an oil habit. There is not and there is no need for oil rehab centers because using oil does not destroy one’s life.

The purpose of this ludicrous attack is solely political. People on the right use the addiction accusation, but throw in the word “foreign.” Foreign oil is undesirable as a national defense issue and adds to the trade deficit. If the imagined addiction was only to American oil, there would be no issue.

People on the left use the addiction attack in order to promote environmentalism. The hypocrisy of the left matches that of the right; if all cars ran on something environmentally friendly such as solar power, they would not be accusing Americans of having solar addiction.

It’s fine to be concerned about the environment and national security, but stop insinuating America has weak moral fiber because they’ve made the most of a very useful natural resource.

I’m Not an Oil Addict

Oil fuels better lives by Jeff Jacoby –Boston.com

AS THE DEEPWATER Horizon spill continues to foul the Gulf of Mexico, pundits and policymakers everywhere are once again reaching for the A-word. The BP disaster, proclaims Washington eminence David Gergen, is “a wake-up call to end our addiction to oil.’’ Without “a real climate bill,’’ warn the editors of the Washington Post, “America might be addicted to oil a lot longer than it needs to be.’’

We must “begin to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil,’’ intones Senator John Kerry on ABC, while syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman lambastes “the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.’’

Americans consume oil not because they are “addicted’’ to it, but because it enriches their lives, making possible prosperity, comfort, and mobility that would have been all but unimaginable just a few generations ago. Almost by definition, an addiction is something one is healthier without. But oil-based energy improves human health and reduces poverty — it makes life longer, safer, and better. Addictions debase life. Oil improves and expands it.

It’s fine to be concerned about the environment and national security, but stop insinuating America has weak moral fiber because they’ve made the most of a very useful natural resource.

Quality of Life comes with Consumer Choice

John Stossel – Big Government Bullies Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED94grKcVfU

In this segment, John Stossel interviews Spirit airlines CEO, Ben Baldanza. Spirit airlines is known most recently for charging carry-on baggage fees. Ben Baldanza defends the practice of charging for carry-on bags and states something insightful about capitalism and consumer choices.

Stossel: What do you think of Senator Schumer saying these fees erode the quality of life?

Baldanza: Well the quality of life, I think, comes with consumer choice, to some extent.

Audience: Applause

Baldanza: To me it’s like going to McDonald’s and saying they have to sell french-fries with every hamburger. Now a lot of people buy french fries with a hamburger, but what if you don’t want french fries? McDonald’s still can sell you just the hamburger and not make you pay for the french fries.

There is a loss of the quality of life when the right to decide for yourself what you are willing to pay or not pay for is taken away. Regulations which decide what consumers must buy or cannot buy are encroachments on freedom and diminish the quality of everyone’s’ lives.

McDonald’s recently did experience regulators telling them what they cannot sell, as Santa Clara County did when they recently banned the selling of toys with meals. Deciding for others how and what they can spend their money on diminishes freedom and the quality of life.

At Some Point You’ve Made Enough: Fill in the Blank

Obama: “You’ve Made Enough Money”

President Obama says, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” This is one of those perfect setups that would be difficult to pass up without commenting. Here some responses found on the internet to the Presidents remark:

I think at some point the Government has printed enough money.
I do think at a certain point you’ve served enough days as President.
I do think at a certain point you’ve told enough lies.
I do think at some point you’ve got enough power.
I do think at a certain point that your welcome has expired.
I do think at a certain point the government has spent enough money.

The list of snappy retorts is far from complete, so here are some more I haven’t seen yet. At some point you’ve…

Broken enough campaign promises.
Divided the country enough.
Ignored the Constitution enough.
Spent enough on bailouts.
Borrowed enough money.
Created enough federal agencies.
Bullied enough countries.
Created enough regulations.
Preached enough on how we should live our lives.
Sold enough future generations into slavery.
Run our lives enough.
Created enough entitlements.
Distributed enough wealth.
Vilified making money enough–time to let it go.

Maybe Life is Obscene, But Profit is Not

Stossel Show – Lies, Myths and Stupidity! (Part 2/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmc7MFcymXU

In this segment of the show, Michael Medved and John Stossell discuss the phrase “obscene profits.”

Michael Medved: “One of the things that I hate is this term ‘obscene profits.’ There are no obscene profits.”

The debate over the which transactions in our lives one can morally profit from has been going on for some time and is not likely to be settled any time soon. Just look at the history of morality in moneylending–it will still be debated thousands of years from now.

The term “obscene profits” is usually applied to oil and health insurance companies, or basically any business that supplies things necessary for survival. “Obscene” in these cases means they made a lot of money in an area some believe it immoral to seek profit.

Profit is one of those words that people have multiple definitions for and as a result, debates and discussions often become convoluted because people end up arguing about the morality of profit, without first clarifying what profit means to them.

Generally profit is viewed as experiencing a gain from a transaction. I know of no voluntary transaction between people that won’t result in at least some type of gain or profit for both sides. Even acts considered selfless result in a profit of well being, so simply profiting from an action isn’t inherently immoral.

I slightly disagree with Medved when he said there are no obscene profits. Theft is an obscene profit, when only one side gains from a violent transaction. Medved’s use of the word profit was meant in terms of a free and fair exchange for goods or services. There is no such thing as an obscene profit when it comes to non-coercive transactions between free people.

Non-coercive is the key word here. People that use that term “obscene profits” often believe profiting from selling goods or services necessary to survival is a form of coercion. Since life forces you to eat, you must buy food from those who sell food if you do not produce your own. The people offering their goods and services are then equated with being uncaring.

Business doesn’t determine the rules of life; nature does. Call life obscene if you want, but don’t blame the people that make life a lot more bearable.

UK Post Office Resurrecting Freddie and Fannie Debacle

Just keep piling it on until the entire edifice falls down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs5mt5Bsvck&playnext_from=TL&videos=2If1BOIF2ds

The UK is working on creating its own version of a Freddie and Fannie debacle of low rate mortgages to increase home ownership. The interesting part is that in the UK the method of delivery is not a (GSE) government-sponsored enterprise, but the Post Office.

The Post Office plans to shake up the mortgage market in the UK

Despite the Bank of England base rate remaining unchanged at 0.5pc, Britain’s biggest high street financial services provider – with more branches than all the banks combined – has just cut its mortgage rates for the fourth month in a row. Better still, the new deals are fixed rates for up to five years and some are market-beaters.

This isn’t just good news for hard-pressed homebuyers but for many others too, particularly people in rural communities, because the company in question is the Post Office.

What? You didn’t know the place where you buy stamps also provides homeloans? Well, you do now.

So I looked at the UK Post Office web site to see for myself. Loans, very similar to the ones the US is still struggling with, are being touted as “Rate Designed For You” by the UK post office. At least the banks/Post Office are requiring 20 percent down, so it’s not as bad as some of the sub-prime mortgages were in the US.

2 year fixed rate

3.15% which is a fixed rate until 30/06/2012, then

3.49% variable, which is the Bank of England Base Rate plus 2.99% for the rest of the mortgage period

Government backed loans, low fixed rate to attract buyers, followed by variable interest rates–what could go wrong?

Back to the original article about the Post Office loans.

The new deals are part of the Post Office’s bid to reverse decades of decline – and its success could help revive commercial life in many villages, which might otherwise fade into dormitory suburbs.

It plans to follow up with a new current account and first-time buyer mortgages as part of its strategy to provide a viable alternative to the high street banks, whose reputations have been tarnished by charging borrowers too much and paying savers too little.

I had thought the lessons of government backed mortgages were clear by now. When governments back loans, it encourages risky behavior. The artificial demand for loans creates a bubble, the bubble eventually pops, and people are left upside-down in mortgages. I thought it would be at least a decade or two until this idea reared its ugly head again.

Thanks to The Modern Mystic for pointing this out.

If you take their money, you have to take their crap

There is a rule all of us know, but aren’t always consciously aware of: if you take their money, you have to take their crap. This is just how society works; it’s not written into law, but most us live by the principal every day without giving it much thought.

If you’ve ever asked a friend or relative for money, then you probably already know the rule. You may get the money, but with strings. “OK, here is the money, but I’ll expect to see you at the family gathering you usually avoid.” Or maybe even worse, “Here is the money, but I’d really appreciate it if you would return the favor and rub my foot corns.”

Sometimes the money comes with much larger strings attached. Taking money from someone else can lead to the person giving the money running your life. “Here is the money, but I’ll expect you to – stop smoking, go back to school, lose the facial piercings, start going to church, etc.”

Working for a living means you’ll take crap from your employer because they pay you. If you work the cash register or take payments at your job, you take crap from the customer. Even if you are self-employed, whoever you take money from has the unspoken authority to give you crap about your product or service.

Those who know the crap rule were not surprised to see the government complain about bonuses paid in the banks and auto industry. If you take money from the government, then it’s safe bet you’ll have to take some crap from them. The reverse of this is also true: politicians can expect to take crap from those who donate large amounts to their campaigns.

The rule works both ways most of the time – If you hand money to someone else, they have to take your crap. If you are at a restaurant and don’t like the service or food, you can freely complain or refuse to give a tip. If the service is lousy, you can threaten to take your business elsewhere.

There are some people who take your money and instead give you crap. Doctors, mechanics, and PC technicians have been known to take your money for service and turn around and give you crap about poor maintenance. People who ignore the unspoken crap rule do so at their own peril, because you can go and find someone else to take your money who will not give you grief.

In all the above examples, the person taking the money does a cost-benefit analysis. Is the crap I have to take for the money worth it? We all have our own crap-to-money calculations. As long we have some say in deciding how much crap we are willing to put up with, we usually play along. The crap rule is far from perfect, but at least it gives each person involved some limited control of the transaction.

The one area where the crap rule does not apply at all is between an individual and government. The rule here is that the government takes your money and gives you crap and you have no control. Government doesn’t have to play by the crap rule, because they have the power to take money from you without your consent.

Government takes money from you and then turns around and tells you you’re are too fat, greedy, lazy, stupid, ignorant, addicted, selfish, impatient, pampered, intolerant, unhealthy, unloving, fiscally irresponsible and to top it off, you complain too much. All these may be true; the point is, it’s a violation of the crap rule for the one who takes the money to give you crap!

When looking at government through the crap lens, it should come as no surprise that people are angry and fed up with governments in general. The little control we have in our daily lives is nonexistent when dealing with government. The natural rule of refusing to pay or seek service elsewhere just doesn’t apply when it comes to government, and that really is a load of crap.

Toyota recall – Would you turn over damaging information to competitors?

When U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Toyota owners should stop driving their cars, questions immediately emerged about LaHood’s motivations. There is no way to prove of disprove his motives; only LaHood knows for sure what motivated the statement. The perception that our government doesn’t have pure motivations is real, and this view will continue as long as they are tied to GM and Chrysler.

One question to bring up is why Toyota didn’t address the defect sooner; was it because they didn’t want to turn over damaging information to one of their competitors? Toyota could claim they were worried about the severity of the problem being exaggerated by U.S. officials, and can point to LaHood’s statement to back up those concerns.

If new regulations are put into place to protect consumers from the defects found in Toyota’s cars, Japan could start accusing the United States of regulatory misconduct and unfair trade practices. There is no guarantee a trade war will erupt from the recall, but it is a possible unintended consequence.

There might be calls for a congressional investigation of the transportation department to make sure nothing fishy has been going on. As much as I like keeping congress busy with innocuous distractions, an investigation will just be a waste of time and money because it is so difficult to prove pure or impure motivations.

The longer government motors is in existence the more the problem will grow. When GM or Chrysler wins a contract with the government, the conflict of interest problem will be brought up again. Ford will be able to claim the government is showing favoritism each time they don’t win a contract.

This story is another example of what can go wrong when one institution of society becomes too entwined with another. Hybrids work well in cars, but government and industry hybrids are accidents waiting to happen. The government should have stayed focused on its role of governing and not subsidizing industry. Staying focused on protecting liberty it is the best way to govern and avoid conflict of interests and the resulting unintended consequences.

Distractions for Washington DC Cause Increase in Productivity

Each time the economy slows down, it leads to micromanagement at work. When a company is making money, the people at the top are either taking it easy or looking for new ways to make money. When the money isn’t coming in as fast as they’d like, they start looking inside their company for savings and efficiency. It turns into a living hell for the people at the bottom because everything they do ends up being micromanaged.

Many workers are hoping and praying for the economy to turn around just because they are tired of explaining how and why they do some of the simplest tasks. A slow economy leads to the annoying time-sheets detailing every minute of the day. Pointing out the loss of productivity to management caused by keeping track of work rather than doing work falls on deaf ears. Workers catch on to being micromanaged and learn to fake time-sheets so they can get back to being productive.

In some work situations, the micromanaging turns into having a supervisor watching over the shoulder of workers. Having someone watching everything you do doesn’t mean you are going to do it any faster, because it’s a distraction from doing the job at hand. Pointing out the loss of productivity from excessive monitoring will once again fall on deaf ears. Workers also learn how to play this game by finding things to keep their managers busy. Workers start complaining about how other departments are run and how much the “defective” departments are making their jobs more difficult. With any luck, the managers will all be busy in meetings fighting with one another so you can get back to work.

The same workplace dynamic of the people at the top needing to do something is taking place in Washington DC. Just as workplace management can’t acknowledge the harm they do by interfering with the job at hand, the government can’t see the harm they are doing to the economy. Reforming health care and new regulations for business are examples of the government micromanaging the economy, and when the loss of productivity is pointing out, it falls on deaf ears.

Politicians have no qualms distracting the public so we aren’t focused on the job they are doing, so I have no guilt in suggesting we distract the government so we can do our jobs. The Obama administration is starting to look at the Bowl Championship Series and that’s a good thing; as long as you aren’t part of the BCS. We need to come up with more innocuous distractions like college bowl games to keep them busy. I’m calling on my fellow American’s that when they are involved in any polling to pick the least intrusive option. If asked which of the following is most important – the economy – heath care – sexting by teenagers, for the sake of our future please pick “sexting.”

Businesses can’t use the same tactics workers use with faking their time-sheets. Faking time-sheets might get a worker fired, faking the governments time-sheets can lead to big fines or prison terms. Businesses can fight back by lobbying congress with useful distractions such as, coming up with a way to keep copiers from copying genitalia or convincing congress businesses would be more productive if congress could tell them the absolute value of pi.

If we all put our heads together we can come up with some new distractions for Washington DC. Here are a few ideas–not exactly good ideas, but something to get the creative juices flowing:

Demand all of congress visit every site in the world impacted by global warming before taking any action. It’s expensive, but trust me–it’s worth it.

If enough people film street lights and email them to their representative, we can convince congress there is an imminent alien invasion.

Protest anything from France.

Start a rumor terrorists are secretly sending commands to operatives through 4chan.

Ask congress to find out how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood (stressing how important woodchucks are to the economy).

The number of sex scandals by elected officials is destroying our faith in government and should be investigated by congress.

Trickle Down and Around Taxation

Trickle down taxation is when business push higher operation costs onto their customers. John Stossel’s article, “Obama: I Will Tax You to Punish Banks,” expresses the idea that taxes aren’t really paid by business–all taxation eventually trickles down to customers:

“In other words, the Obama Administration is going to punish those greedy banks by making it more expensive for you to borrow money. This is wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with a point made by Jamie Dimon, CEO at JP Morgan Chase: ‘Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea…All businesses tend to pass their costs on to customers.'”

And from TheOneLaw on Trickle Down Taxation:

“Taxes on corporations are just passed on to the customer that purchases the products of that company. If that customer is another business it adds on its taxes and passes it along until it gets to the final consumer of the product.”

I agree with both of these articles, but want to point out not all the additional taxes are paid by customers. With high unemployment, businesses have the option of passing some of the tax burden onto their employees. Several companies have stopped matching 401(k) contributions and unpaid overtime is on the rise. Keep in mind the banking industry is regulated by Washington DC as to what they are allowed to charge customers. The taxation can be passed along with new hidden fees, but don’t be surprised to hear bank employees complaining about benefit and wage cuts.

With each new tax, sooner or later the tax shifts its way to the bottom, to the person that has no power to pass the tax farther along.