"Call Me Maybe" or "Say It Ain't So": You decide.

My mother is something.  At 79 years old she has a  an iPad, which she is very good with, and a new desktop with Windows 8.  I can not figure out Windows 8; she's got it going on.  Obviously, at 79, she gets a little frustrated at times because she forgets things.  I get frustrated sometimes because of the things she says; they don't always make sense.  But, for the most part she is pretty sharp.  Can you figure out Windows 8?  Are you 79 years old?  She had to teach me how to text with my iPad.

Last Fall she told me about hearing a story about a woman supporter of president Obama.  The woman claimed that Obama had provide her a cell phone, and that is why she would vote for him.

Initially, I thought my mom might have heard the story wrong.  Or, that the radio station was playing some sort of political joke.  Then I thought, well, it is Chicago, and who knows, maybe the Chicago political machine was providing a little lubricant to help with the woman's constitutional right to vote.  Nonetheless, I wrote off the story as foolishness in one way or another.

Imagine my surprise when I read the Wall Street Journal article about the federal government's free cell phone give away.  I was stunned.  Who was foolish now?

The fact that the program costs $2.2 billion, is poorly  run and consequently fraught with fraud did not stun me.  You expect that.  What stunned me was the fact that the program actually exists!  The federal government gives away cell phones.  

There is a great quote that I will paraphrase:  "We are screwed when the public votes goodies to themselves at the taxpayer's expense".  Game over. There is not enough wealth in America, that can sustain such activity.

It is not so much the cost of the program, which of course is substantial:  "A billion here  and a billion there, pretty soon, that adds up".   It is the fact that the program exists.  Next, it will be cable television as a necessity of life.

To compound my disgust, refer back to previous blogs:  The death of the free market is evidenced by the fact that big business is spending more time lobby lawmakers to guarantee their market than they are spending time convincing consumers to buy their product. Does that tell you who the real consumer is?

Freedom is hard.  It is a participation sport that has no constituents aside from those who work at it.  Bondage is easy.  It takes no effort to receive without thinking and the vicissitudes thereof is social disaster.  As long as people take, certain politicians will give.  Like I said, game over.

"Liberty is the boogie man, when men are hastening to be slaves or tyrants" - C.S. Lewis.  I desire to be neither.  I desire to be free.  Want a cell phone?  I know where you can get one cheap.

Economic Pornography Defined

The question has been raised, what is economic pornography?  I should have taken the time to develop the idea before I used it yesterday.
Pornography is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement".  

Modify it for economics and you get "the depiction of political behavior (in pictures or writing) intended to cause economic excitement".

As applied to yesterday's post, California representative John Campbell was engaged in economic pornography.  His behavior, in writing through proposed legislation to adjure the Federal Reserve (drink the Kool-Aid) to back stop banks that are deemed "too big too fail".

If that doesn't cause economic excitement, I don't know what will.  Imagine running your business with the full knowledge that the Federal Reserve will bail you out.

Civility prohibits me from offering a metaphorical, sexual reference that would identify their excitement.

Too Big to Fail, or Economic Pornography?

     What does "to big to fail" mean?  I will not even attempt to be polite in answering this.  I really do think civility is an important ingredient in discourse, especially political discourse.  But today, I am suspending my rule of civility.

     I am giving you fair warning, if you don't want to be offended go someplace else.  Economic pornography is on the way.  You have been warned!

     Too big to fail? California representative, John Campbell thinks that "Too Big to Fail" (TBTF) exists and  he wants to do something about with the help of the Federal Reserve.  Geez, talk about swallowing more of the poison that made you sick....

      If you believe in the notion that something (bank, industry, company ect) is "too big to fail"....then you are an enemy to freedom.  I make no apology for it, somebody had to tell you.  Kinda like somebody had to tell you there is no Santa Claus....well, there still is the federal government, hmm...go figure.

     You have been fooled by the statist politicians and their cronies in the world of commerce. You have been duped into believing that profit should be privatized and risk belongs the taxpayer.

     Failure is the inherent risk in any endeavor.  The risk belongs to the people who take it, likewise the reward.  Specifically, in the world of banking, the risks associated with the banks activities belong to the depositors/borrowers and the shareholders.  If the bank fails, it fails, end of story.

     Those who believe in the concept of TBTF will quickly respond, but if this bank fails, then such and such will happen.  Well, it might, but of course, we don't know what will happen.  Besides, what if such and such does happen, so what?

     Fear is the only thing that TBTF-ers have to offer.  Fear that the entire world economic system will crumple if a bank that is declared TBTF actually fails.  Fear that there will be food riots and political unrest heretofore never seen.  Fear that life will never be the same.

     Without a doubt, if JP Morgan or Chase fail there will be fallout.  Just as there was when Lehman Brothers failed.  But did the world end when Lehman failed?  No.  Why not?  Because the fear monger TBTF-ers passed TARP legislation?  No.  Because the federal government came to the rescue of the auto industry? No doubt the legislation that insulated the potential loss and assigned it to the taxpayer built confidence in the system, but why should this have been done in the first place?  Maybe because the system has become too dependent on government?

     The world did not, nor would it, come to an end in the great metal down of 2009. Markets work. Assets are bought and sold on a discounted basis, insurance steps in and covers items previously insured and the world just keeps on spinning. Losses are realized.  Deal with it. Profits are made, deal with it some more.

     So, why do we need "Too Big to Fail" legislation.  We don't, but the business community wants it.  It is a said state of affairs when business spends more time lobbying government for profit than it does spending time convincing consumers to buy their product. 

     Which would you rather have as a business person:  A guaranteed safety net backed by the taxing power of the federal government or ....... you fill in the blank.  I'll betcha it is always the former and rarely the latter.

     Big business and big government are not freedom's friend when they act in concert to promote their respective interest.  One hand feeds the other and we ending paying the bill.  We have no one to blame but ourselves.  

     

Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church
You know, some stuff you just can not make up.  If you did make it up, no one would believe you because it is just too fanciful.

Well here you have it my friends, truth that is stranger than fiction.

Vladimar Putin:  16 year veteran of the KGB, that notoriously orthodox (in their systematic persecution of all things not "communist") group of upstanding and respectful men and women, current President of Russia (if only in his own mind and his own ballot box), respecter of human rights (who was Alexander Litvinenko?) and all around good guy has found religion.

Not only has he found religion, but religion has found him.  Patriarch Krill and Putin exchange .  Warm and fuzzy is the best way to describe it.

The relationship between God and man starts at forgiveness.  But it does not exclude repentance, contrition and atonement.  The church's responsibility is to stand for these truths.  I do not see Putin's repentance, contrition or acknowledging a need for forgiveness and atonement, nor do I see the church holding him accountable.  While the two of them may have some sort of religion going on,  I think I just lost mine.

Then I wonder, hmm....is it true, or maybe a political fiction.

I think I just got my religion back.