Review and Insight

Just when I was looking for a keystone for this entry, the gift was found in looking at the list of referrals to this website.

I'm not sure if the referral link is Polish, Czech or Urkranian. Having spent a short amount of time in those small, new countries to the right of Italy, it's possible the referring page isn't Czech...although it's the most likely choice. The reasons why the Czech's love the OregonGuy isn't for me to reveal. They do. Face it.

There's enough difference between Ukraine and Russian, (and Grek) that I'm pretty sure it's Czech. If you know, please let me know.

The thing is, the webpage they're now referring to actually strikes me as a rather profound expression of what America means, and how threatening an Obama administration would/will be to American values. As we, as a country, move away from those values that have served us so well in our short history, perhaps a brief dirge is in order. Jesus had three days. (Sort of a three day/two nights kinda thing your travel agent assures you is a good value.)

So, our decline will probably be measured--in the future--as lasting many a good year. I don't believe it. The future of our country will be measured in years, if not weeks.

There are 52 weeks a year.

There are only 156 weeks in the next three years. The havoc that will be wrecked upon our economy will show up within 13 to 26 weeks. At that point, the damage will have been done and the effects will be irrepairable. And there are no brakes on the truck. We are careening out of control--economically--and the driver of the bus keeps telling folks to get on, sit down and shut up. Literally.

Did you know that the White House just issued an ukase forbidding us--normal U.S. citizens--from complaining to our elected officials about current government policy?

Yeppers.

You prolly don't hit the "whitehouse" webpage. Mebbe you should. Once published, findings by the executive do effect law. (There is no "aw f&ck factor in government. Once the elected no longer have to listen to us, we're toast. Well kids? We're toast.)

The breadth and expanse of government control and expansion is greater than I have ever experienced. Mebbe not so my mom. She had FDR. We had LBJ. Then JEC. Today? WTFK?

Re-reading a post from September of last year seems so anachronistic. There was still so much hope that the country would recognize that a man who had absolutely no experience whatsoever would or could not be elected. Again, the Jimmah paridigm. Although, to be fair, I've always asserted that President Carter probably was the smartest, best educated president we've ever had. I point that out to show that education and "smartness" isn't always the best set of predicates to base ones choice upon. (I'm not being facetious, or sarcastic. I truly believe that James Earl Carter is one of the best educated Presidents we've ever had. Period. But book lernin aint' everything.)

My post then was on the rising tide of national socialism in this country. That there were cultural indicators that we were moving to a point in the balance of thoughts and beliefs that would tend to suggest that reasonable discussion of differences was being taken off the table. I haven't taken the time to fix all the links in this post, but I do offer this link. And I've updated the link on the original post.

There is a truly existential threat afoot in this country. We may become the new Cuba. I've already picked out my classic car.

Have you?

UPDATE: Perchance, Romany?

Better Car Mandated: Path To Be Beaten

Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.

That's been a pardigm of American exceptionalism. When you build a better product, given all the variables that go into the purchase of that product, it's clear that if it's better, you win in the battle for the allocation of scarce resources.

What are some of the variables? Good question. For now it's simply amazing that we hadn't used such a direct path to a better car. What were we thinking?

Now gas, that's something I can relate to when discussing the value of mandates. Since government mandated a "better gas" by requiring us to buy ethanol, I've seen my mileage reduced by twenty percent. I've been able to sidestep this drop in gas mileage by purchasing gas over in Chinook, Washington. They have the old, worse gas in supreme (high octane) grade. For those of you who continue to purchase your gas at an Oregon gas station, or at a "branded" gas station in Washington, you continue to lose twenty percent of your car's potential mileage.

But there are different variables yet in place, aren't there? I like buying Chevron branded gas, because the engineers at Chevron have come up with a series of additives that assure the user of longer life for their engines. Second, deaing with a reputable, branded dealer means that I'm less likely to deal with water in the fuel being pumped into my car. That is, the gas being delivered is pure gas.

But water in gas, protecting your engines injection system, all these variables when choosing gas really go out the window with ethanol. You know that you can't store ethanol. Ethanol sucks water out of the atmosphere. And into whatever storage device you use. Whether it's a large tank at a fuel farm, or the tank on your car, you wait too long and you've got a water problem.

Remember that this fall or winter when the lights go out, and you're not able to start your generator. Small engines are pretty cool, but they don't run on water.
(click on pic for more info.)
Point being, I'm pretty pumped that government has finally mandated better cars. As they have mandated better gas. As they want to mandate better health care. And they want to increase the cost of energy so that they can deal with the problem of Man Made Global Warming through Cap and Trade. (Please note: before you begin trading carbon offset certificates, the OregonGuy is putting into place a means for you to buy and sell carbon offset certificates locally. Serially. Hold onto your bucks for now.)

Now, when it comes to buying a car, what is it that determines which car that you purchase?

One of my better econ profs suggested--advice which I follow--the following scenario when approaching a car dealer's lot: when asked "what are you looking for?" reply, "I was thinking of buying a white car."

The point being, the salesman has lost a lot of pricing pressure. If you come in looking for a new Camaro, you limit yourself to a high demand vehicle that lacks elasticity. You might as well come onto the lot with hundred dollar bills hanging out of your pockets. But when you tell him you've simply a preference for "white", since white is a common colour there's a great deal of price elasticity that you have just introduced into the microeconomic choice you face. After you've looked at twenty white cars, you may have seen "the car" you want, and you can begin discussing whether or not that car "comes in white." Again, the elasticity of demand still remains below 1. And negotiating price with an elasticity of demand less than one is where you want to be!

Of course, economic theory goes out the window with the government's mandate for a better car. Because it's better, the elasticity of demand for this car will naturally be 1. The other variables that go into making a buying decision simply go out the window: colour, style, number of passengers, off-road ability, hauling capacity, crash survivability, roominess, acceleration, visibility, comfort; all these former variables of prefence, taste and choice, gone.

Because of the simplicity of government mandates, we've been saved, in the future, now.

I can't wait for my energy prices to double! Of course, I get no more energy. I just pay more. And that money goes to government. See? That's the beauty of cap and trade, a mandate to increase the price of energy. And, I can't wait for my new, better government mandated car. That's the beauty, a better car even though it may not really have anything in it's design or execution that would prompt me to buy it, the assurance that it is better is enough.

And I'm waiting for government mandated health care. It's going to be better, because that's what the mandate says. Whether my government can afford to maintain the level of health care I have now isn't important. It will be better because that's what the mandate says it will be.

It's a time for Change!™ If there's anything in your life that you wish was better, now that the new men are in power, it's time for your wishes be known. What do you want the government to mandate? I want better smokes, but the government has already mandated crappy cigarettes. Oh, they're better, I guess, if you want smokes that self-extinguish. But most smokers I know would prefer smokes that taste good and don't actually go out. Yannow, 'cause we're smoking them?

I want to mandate self-extinguishing candles. Open flame seems a lot more dangerous--and demonstrably more dangerous--than ciggies. Also? I want the trucks that move gasoline to service stations off the roads during normal business hours. After all, a gallon of gas has the explosive force of a stick of TNT! Forget about the LNG ships coming into our ports! Get these ubiquitous ticking time bombs off our streets!

Oh, and I want to mandate ponies. Ponies are cute. And Santa Claus. I really think we should mandate Santa Claus, because even if we're occasionally naughty, we're actually really nice and we should be able to get all the free sh*t. Oh, and a pay raise. I need a pay raise. (Really. How do you expect to pay your future, doubled energy costs?)

Well, time is now to get in line. The path to the door of the new Chrysler and GM dealerships is going to be deep, it's going to be long. And why wait? Just drop down and drop off a check. Be the first one on your block to have the miracle it took government to produce: a better car.

It would be churlish of me to point out that the current economic downturn is notably the product of government mandates for sub-prime mortgages, wouldn't it? That government tax mandates created the culture of "flipping"? That government mandates hit the poor and those least able to afford it, their ability to own and maintain their homes?

In fact, just about every negative economic variable that markets, from the financials to the super, result from government mandates?

It would be churlish. Sorry. Enjoy the future.

Change!™

UPDATE: Found at the Real King's place, a link to this story. Is it really this simple?

UPDATE: Found at the Feedlot, a link to this museum of stupidity past.

David Asman Is Brilliant!

Just now I heard David Asman say, "You can't have capitalism without capital formation."

Brilliant! Somebody gets it! Just one guy, mebbe. But he said it.

There is hope.

Green: Old Tech That Doesn't Work Well

(Click on pic for link to go to U.S. Department of Energy website. You'll need to scroll down to page 13 to view image. Linked is .pdf file.)

Clean energy. Compared to what?

I read a comment recently about a woman who was shocked that people were going out hunting to bring food to the table. Her advice was to leave the poor critters in the forests alone, and shop for meat in a grocery store. As if the meat you buy at a grocery store didn't define the end-point for some other critter.

I'm not so sure the impulse to keep our energy resources locked in the ground isn't related to the type of thinking shown above, rather than a NIMBY response to resource utilization. That is, whenever you hear about electric cars, solar panels, and other forms of Green Technology, that there is a simple, experiential ignorance on display.

We have amazing resources. Not just in this country, but in this state. And they are amazing, not just from the profound amount of resources at our disposal, but in the potential value of those resources. Our state legislature is arguing over the billions of dollars we're short in government revenues versus government expenditures.

Mere billions.

Why mere billions?

Because billions more lie just off-shore of the mouth of the Columbia. And these are amazing resources. We can exploit these resources cheaply. We can develop thousands of new jobs in the energy field. And the state can follow the example of our sister to the North and reap the benefits of billions of dollars in associated resource receipts.

Amazing resources in that we can get the energy to move and build and create. Cheaply. And petroleum and natural gas aren't the only resources at our fingertips. We have significant coal resources within the state, too.

Utilizing these resources would mean new sources of wealth and jobs for Oregonians. But, just like the resources we keep locked up in the woods--how would you define "renewable"?--the policy of our Vision!™ people is to keep these resources locked up. Just as the lady above thinks hunting for critters is morally wrong, yet buying dead carcass at the market is okay.

I've joked in the past about outlawing the use of arsenic in industrial processes. Arsenic. Everybody knows that arsenic is deadly, right? This should be a slam-dunk! Outlaw arsenic! Outlaw "second-hand smoke"! Outlaw poverty! Outlaw all bad stuff! (An omnibus bill.)

The prollem is, outlawing arsenic would shut down the microchip industries in Washington county. And arsenic is just one "dangerous" (scare quotes) substance used in the manufacture of those high-speed miracles. Just another example of the blithe ignorance that fuels our public policy debate over high-tech, Green Choices.

There's nothing "Green" about Green Technology. It's all a ruse to perpetuate the kind of myth exhibited in the lady's thinking above. You want Green Cars? Mountain tops must needs be scraped to come up with all the constituent components that will be necessary to manufacture these modern miracles. And trillions upon trillions of dollars will be spent to provide these "new" technologies, when they aren't really new after all. They're old technologies. And they are old technologies that simply don't provide low-cost energy. But rather than telling you that simple truth, that solar, wind and other "new" technologies have been around for decades, if not centuries in the case of wind power, the problem is is that these technologies don't provide usable energy cheaply when compared to other sources of old technologies.

Even in their pursuit of transforming our economy from a carbon-based energy system to a new Green basis, there is still something hiding in the woodpile. Whether it's arsenic, copper or whatever, mountains will still be scraped, and resources must be mined from the Earth in order to create these New, old tech jobs.

I bring this all up due to the effort by the OR150 project to indoctrinate our kids with the type of thinking on display in the woman's comments above. The Oregon 150 people were in Astoria on Tuesday, talking to your kids about how they need to get involved with the Vision!™

"'By giving students an active role in structuring community organizing efforts, we're looking to ensure peer-to-peer outreach and to embed a transformational process that not only gets young people thinking about their communities, but becoming active in them as well,' said Aili Schreiner, Project Manager of Project 2059."

Great. The "community organizers" are getting access to the schools, but there is no balance provided as a counter-point to the silliness that they preach. You can see what they're thinking in the video embedded on their website. (I'm sorry to link to this in that I don't want to highlight the words of the young girls in their video. But remember, she simply represents a level of education that reflects the best work and efforts of her public school teachers.)

Green Tech. Old tech that simply doesn't work very well. And not as cheaply as those sources of energy that we rely upon, day after day. What to do? Increase the price of those sources so that we simply ignore that we're using stupid tech at higher prices. What to do? Well, how's that Man Made Global Warming Crisis coming? A little cap-and-trade and Bingo! We'll tax the Sh&t out of cheap energy, killing those industries. So we have to use old, expensive tech that doesn't work very well.

And then we'll call it good.

What the Democrats Won't Tell You About State Government

Number 2 in the nation for unemployment. Revenues are falling. People are out of work.

The Democrat plan? Borrow more. Spend more. Tax more.

Not surprising, is it? When was the last time you heard of a "Tax and Spend" Republican? (Okay, Gordon Smith. But you see how that worked out.)

The State House is in a battle for some common sense. The Dems want to spend more and more, tax more and more, and borrow more and more. If you were running the House, what would you do?

You can reach Debbie Boone at 503-986-1432. You can e-mail her at rep.deborahboone@state.or.us.

You can reach Brad Witt at 503-986-1431. You can e-mail him at rep.bradwitt@state.or.us.

A call, asking them to keep spending to last budget cycle's level is quick and easy.

Funny Global Warming Stuff From MIT

Loved this comment (corrected) by a guy named Dave:

In increasing order of probability:

10. “MIT: Global Warming of 7°C ‘Could Kill Billions This Century’”

9. Godzilla could kill billions this century…if he existed.

8. A space alien invasion could kill billions this century…if they existed and were bad.

7. The Blob! could billions this century…If someone found its frozen carcass and thawed it out.

6. If the Earth’s core suddenly stopped spinning…it could kill billions this century…And possibly worse: It could bring a sequel to the most scientifically flawed Sci-Fi movie this side of An Inconvenient Truth.

5. If the Earth suddenly stopped spinning…And we didn’t stop spinning…Billions could die this century.

4. If really survived being blown up by Kurt Russell and global warming thawed its carcass out…Billions could die this century.

3. If a full scale nuclear war erupted…It could kill billions this century.

2. If a super-space-virus named The Andromeda Strain leaked out of a space capsule in New Mexico…It could kill billions this century.

1. If a really big space rock hit the Earth…It could kill billions this century.

You can never tell when the Grim Reaper is gonna knock on your door. But it's apparent that MIT has a scarcity of Karl Popper primers on their shelves.

The Abnegation of International Leadership

(Thanks to LJ for teh pic.)

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.

Which of these best describes America during the Obama administration?

For those of you who believe the whole hopey changiness thingy, you believe that our current President was born great. Or, at least, that our President will achieve greatness.

What happens if greatness is thrust upon our President?

There are a multitude of problems facing the White House. All of them courtesy of George W. Bush. None of these problems are of our President’s own making. Our President inherited all of them.

Hmm.

I had a hard time listening to Republican apologists working to describe the economic downturn that began to be noticed in 2001 as “Bill Clinton’s” legacy. For me it was time to man up. Explain the downturn, take it, and make it yours. And then explain the ways in which you were going to attack it. Worse, were the imputations that these Clinton legacy effects were still in effect after 9-11. Well, hell yah. Don’t be a dope! Who wouldn’t think that the attacks as vicious as those perpetrated against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a hole in Pennsylvania wouldn’t exacerbate an economic downturn?

Personally, I’ve had to come into companies that were struggling, to fix them. It’s what I do.

Who cares what led to our current situation? If you’ve inherited a bankrupt company your job will not be easier if you blame your predecessors. (In fact, nobody wants to hire an “Alibi Ike”.)

I explain to my kids that God invented time so that “everything doesn’t happen at once”. The flip-side to that coin is, don’t expect everything to be done at once.

And I don’t.

I’m old fashioned. In a lot of ways. I want the Four Lads to sing at my funeral. “It’s Istanbul (Not Constantinople)”. I want—with apologies to Saul Bellow—many things.

I can live without many things. There are a few things that I have found that I cannot live without. I do not want to wake up tomorrow to find that these few things have disappeared. And you do not want to find America lacking in some of these things.

If you are a long-time reader of this blog, you’ve read before of my affection for President Gerald Ford. What “sealed the deal” for me was his masterful diplomacy leading up to the Helsinki Accords. For those of you new to this site, I welcome you, and ask you to read this document.

This was the masterful document that set up the ascension of President Reagan’s and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s defeat of the former Soviet Union. And for you revisionists out there, I was no fan of President Reagan prior to his election. But the proof is in the pudding. While President Ford may have gained a certain acrimony from what is today referred to as the “Christian conservatives,” it is true that President Ford’s masterful diplomacy during his tenure in office, albeit short, put into place the diplomatic tools that were necessary for the follow-on of the Thatcher-Reagan years.

I watched the ‘Stash on Greta Sustern’s show last night. Listening to the Ambassador one is struck by the sheer incompetence of our President’s current foreign policy team. Joe Biden was right. The President is being tested. The question is, is anybody grading the President?

We’ve had notably disastrous Presidents when it comes to foreign policy…most notably President Carter. It can be argued that in retrospect the Clinton Administration also fell short, whether it was in pursuit of Al-Qaeda or Secretary Albright’s curious work with the North Koreans. To their credit, however, was at least an older cadre of foreign policy wonks who were aware of the impact of a North Korean nuclear program on two of our most important allies; Japan and South Korea.

The administration is caught up with the shiny tools of power. They are focused on achieving goals that attempt to overcome market forces; an attempt to gain control over the industrial and financial markets in the United States. As the common Joe wakes up to the priors in place, criticism of our current, massive deficit increases up-tick in intensity. Yeah, Martha, those deficits are that large.

No one will want to buy the new Government Motors automobile. The Environmental/Leftist Complex doesn’t care about market values. Their values are of a higher kind. It’s all about Change!™

So we’ll live for a while at a Dow of 8500. When inflation begins to roar, people will complain. Automakers will make cars that no one will want to buy. GM and Chrysler will again need to be bailed out. Union employees will have job guarantees. A re-reading of post-war England should be required of our public school kids. But that would be too harsh. We’re on a path toward insignificance. But that is what the Enviro/Leftist Complex wants.

They’re getting what they want.

Change! ™

Justice Sotomayer?

Words fail me.

Fortunately, wordsmith Roger Simon had this:

"What’s interesting - and revealing - about the video is the collusive laughter between Sotomayor and the audience about legislating from the bench - something Obama assured us in his introduction of the jurist she does not do. Maybe Sonia should try stand up."

Increasing Oligarchy?

(Click pic for pic. File is .pdf.)

One of the confusing labels in talking about politics is Liberal.

Since I've always considered myself a Liberal, I have come to the point where those on the Left should, in my humble opinion, be referred to as Leftists, rather than Liberals. Most of my values--Liberal values--are encapsulated in our nation's founding documents; the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Speech should be free. Property rights and contracts must be enforced. The choice of what religion I should choose to adhere to is mine, and mine alone.

It is one of the fundamental concepts of our titular form of government that the coercive powers of the state must be limited.

What has resulted is a society where the ownership of certain types of assets is extremely diffuse.

Home ownership nationally is about 67 percent. Two-thirds of us own our own homes. In 2004, there were 29.3-million nonfarm business tax returns filed with the IRS. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the Department of Labor's employer figures.

This is an amazing testament to a market-based economic model that relies upon diffusion and self-interest to drive an economy.

One of the defining differences between the United States and all other countries has been the sheer wealth of this country, as opposed to every other country. Walking though the streets of Frankfurt, Vienna, Milan, Moscow, an American is struck by just how quaint it all is. Quaint being a nice word for a 1950's feel that everything is stuck in a time warp. How poor everything is. You see it in the people and how they dress. Everything seems to be a knock-off of American fashion, made in backwater countries with cheaper grades of material. The age and wear on their tram systems. And the biggest difference between all these European and Asian markets has been the difference between where they were and where they are. That is, all of these markets have suffered from greater degrees of central control and authority, from socialism, than has the United States.

Fifteen miles in any direction from the ring-road in Moscow one meets incomprehensible poverty. The Socialist Paradise's mask is ripped away. Within the city limits one need only visit the new middle-class in their homes to get a sense of what is real poverty. The dourness of the monochrome exteriors of their housing is better than what passes for "home" within those façades. If you can remember the cheap, fleabag hotels of the 1960's on Burnside, you can capture the flavour of living the dolce vita in the former Soviet Union. Threadbare or non-existent carpets in entryways. Threadbare or non-existent carpets in their living space. Space for a bed, a chair, maybe two beds. And a cooking ring.

But there is, for all that, a certain forced social egalitarianism.

When you live in a poor country, most people share in that poverty.

It's easy for me to see the point of divergence between Liberal and Leftist. It occurred in the 1960's in this country. It happened when our Congress adopted President Johnson's plan to create a Great Society. Narrow-minded parochial thinkers adopted a view (Vision!™) that our country was too great, too rich and too powerful. What they proposed was a safety-net, that no one in this country would have to live in the kind and type of poverty that afflicted the poorest of our people. And, it was a truly horrid poverty.

If you never visited an Indian reservation in the 1960's, you can't appreciate the poverty that these people lived in. If you never visited a migrant workers' camp in the 1960's, you can't imagine the poverty that these people lived in. If you've never seen the poverty of the field workers' camps of the Deep South in the 1960's, you can't imagine the poverty of those places. So our government policy became one of lifting these people from their poverty. By giving them cash.

At the same time, some truly important legislation was being passed. A public campaign was being waged against those who refused to adhere to what I believe are my Liberal beliefs. Led by Dr. Martin Luther King and great Republican senators and congressmen--following the extremely important Brown v. Board of Education--Republicans worked to make sure that the promises of the 14th, 15th and 16th Amendments were effected through enabling legislation, most notably, the Civil Rights Act. More important than cash, more important than "lifting up", was the levelling of the playing field.

What occurred was a bifurcation: the Left went toward re-distributionism; the Right went to equity before the law. The Leftist impulse was to take from the Man. The Right worked to ensure that political and economic opportunities were guaranteed to all, regardless of colour, race or creed.

I'm afraid that what we're seeing today--vis a vis our country's increasing cant toward socialism--is a result of this political bifurcation between the Left and the Right. Leftists wish to paint those of us on the Right as Nazi's, anti-science bigots, in-bred mouthbreathers.

In juxtaposition, they paint themselves as social-justice activists, smart and chic.

How do we describe ourselves? Interesting question. I know I'm not a Nazi. I know I have a deep appreciation for science and the scientific method. I know that I only mouthbreath at night. I think some nights I saw many logs.

Being a Liberal, rather than a Leftist, I believe in things like the meaning of words. I believe that "due process" is important. I believe that limiting entry into markets is a bad thing. I believe in an even playing field. I believe that government has a role to play in regulation of our behaviour, but that that role is limited. And if you want to reduce those limitations, the due process for those reductions is incorporated into the Constitution through the Amendment Process.

We, as a nation, are going to be tested on the fundamental beliefs of the Left and the Right. I would admonish those who seek to effect social justice to remember the writing of Edmund Burke. Or, more importantly for those of us who went to Beaverton High, the philosophy of Coach McGee: before you tear a system down, explain how the system you're going to replace the old system with is better. How it works. How it gets a can of peas to market more cheaply. How you can work more competetively. How you can work to give your family a better life. How it will increase our liberty and our freedom.

One of the dilemmas of the modern economist is how to transform nations which suffer high rates of oligarchy. In this country it has been our economic mobility that has created new wealth and new wealth holders without regard to ancestry. Oligarchy lends itself to certain forms of corruption. In this country, it is our common belief that no man is above the law and that all men are equal before the law that has held creation of oligarchy at bay. It has been our system of limited government that has held at bay the pre-emption or dominance of markets by our government. And more importantly, held the allies of the Left at bay.

How do oligarchies develop? History is replete with examples, but all of the examples that I can think of come with a single requisite: partnership with those who hold political power. (Sure, you can nitpick and say it was religious power that created these oligarchies. Perhaps that was true through the 17th century, but the rise of liberalism meant a diminution of religious power in favour of political power. States and Kings ruled in the temporal sphere. Prior to the rise of nationalism, religious power was the political power.)

In many parts of the world, aggregation is the problem. Mexico comes to mind. So too much of Latin America. Which has led to us singing songs of the poor campisonos. After a great aggregation, supported by an oligarchy tied to political power, how do you attempt to disaggregate? Where Leftists fail is in their identification of the enemy. It is the government partnership with the private sphere where the concept of market economics is most distressed. It is not teh "Globalization" thingy. Huge disallocations of capital have, and will, occur. Visit the light-rail Vision!™ of Portland. Billions to build. Billions to maintain. And still people prefer private autos. One can only sadly note that most of the transportation problems of the state could have--should have--been solved if those dollars weren't so wasted. And lastly, it is not the Military-Industrial Complex that we must avoid. That threat, like the threat of polio, has disappeared.

Today we need fear the Environmental-Leftist Complex. A rising oligarchy of private/public partnerships that are taking billions of private dollars and directing the use of those dollars to projects supported by the Environmental-Lefitst Complex.

I attempted to point out the rise of the Left--and their compulsion to centralized authority--with my post "A Foot in the Door or a Seat at the Table?" back in 2008.

The text includes an article by Arrigo Levi. Written in 1976, after the election of President Carter, but before his accession to office, Levi writes the following words:

"An “institutional” approach to the problem of organizing a better management of world problems has not received much attention (especially, but not only, by America) during the last few years. A lot of time has been wasted, and in the atomic age, the supply of time is not unlimited."

What to do, what to do?

I haven't talked or written much about groups like the Bilderberg or the Trilateral Commission. Folks who write about these groups are treated by the Left like conspiracy theorists. That Levi was involved in these groups is mentioned, but no imputed conspiracy is intended. But a brief internet search of these groups, and their attendees, is recommended. I will leave it to you, the reader, to ask yourself if there is a shred, a scintilla of evidence that would link groups like these to the push by other non-governmental agencies to adopt policies and practises that would likely give greater power and authority to central planning agencies and authorities, rather than less.

America has been a bastion of freedom and economic liberty throughout its history. There are those who would assert that this "exceptionalism" is the cause for the angst, the stǚrm und drang of our modern world. It is Levi's prescription that we should "the democratic West ought to concentrate its attention on the hasty construction and completion of Western and worldwide institutions, in order to strengthen our economies and our societies and to contain within a more stable framework the great risks of Euro-communism."

I would proffer that there is greater risk to our institutions in America from these hastily constructed Western and worldwide institutions than from an obeissance to our own particular rule of law and national self-interest. In Oregon, we have first-hand experience of the cronyism of our state's elected officials. Of course, this cronyism is couched within the Vision!™ of our dear leaders. So we must accept that friends and families of the politically connected will receive largesse from their political partners.

We will see increasing central control and planning nationally, just as we have been on the wrong end of the stick here in Oregon for more than 30 years. And the businesses and unions who sign on for their piece of the public/private partnership will, in the short-run, prosper. (Which is totally Keynesian, no? "In the long-run, we're all dead"?) What results is an increasing oligarchy, the private/public partnerships of those companies that adopt the central impulses of the Left for short-term advantage. Increasing centralization, rather than increasing decentralization. More barriers to entry, not fewer. Greater public planning and government "investment."

Where, in the constitutions of either the state or the national government does it read "government shall mandate private investment"? I assert it does not. We have never supported oligarchy, or the creation of oligarchy, at any moment of our previous history. That was a European disease. Or a Latin disease. Or an Asian disease.

No one reads "Wealth of Nations" anymore. No one cares about dead guys who wrote about the mistakes and failures of the past. The Left is comprised of the social-justice activists, the smart and the chic. Just don't try to pin them down on how and where wealth is created. Wealth is simply unimportant. I guess that's because it's "unsustainable."

The miracle of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

A Constitutional Amendment

No bill, nor any amendment to said bill, introduced in Congress, either in the House or in the Senate, shall be longer than thirty pages in length unless approved by 3/4ths of the Members thereof.

North To Alaska!

In 1960, Johnny Horton hit the charts with this song. An excerpt of the lyrics below:

"'Cos a man needs a woman to love him all the time.

Remember, Sam, a true love is so hard to find.

"I'd build for my Ginnie, a honeymoon home.

Below that old white mountain just a little south-east of Nome.

Where the river is winding,Big nuggets they're finding.

"North to Alaska,

"They're goin' North, the rush is on.

"North to Alaska,

"They're goin' North, the rush is on."

Alaska was admitted into the Union in 1959. And the nation has been better for its admission. What makes Alaska different? Maybe, it's as simple as the people who make that state as great as it is.

But this story, found at Ace's place brought a cheer to my lips. Imagine, a Governor seeking to place the needs of her state's people ahead of the needs of the Federal government! De-centralization, instead of increasing centralization.

Amazing. (And I don't need a passport to travel there!)

You can get to Governor Sarah's website here. Click on the link at the bottom to join SarahPAC.

What Does "Pulitzer" Mean?

I ask the question due to my reading of an on-line article from the Oregonian.

The obtuse author writes briefly on Oregon's continued ascendancy toward the number one spot on the chart of unemployment. We are unemployed, with a bullet.

The prized graph of this obtuse author follows:

"Economists continue puzzling over Oregon's high unemployment rates, which result from more than just layoffs. People continue moving into the state, and both retirees and non-working spouses are seeking jobs, increasing the size of the labor force, which drives up unemployment."

It begs the question; "What economists? Or, which economists?"

Does one need be degreed in economics in order to be considered an economist? How much post-baccalaureate work needs to have been completed? Does one need the phud? (I don't know of any "masters" programs for econ at any major uni. Generally, masters were handed out to the guys who didn't make the phud cut.)

I believe that one needs only an understanding of economics to think like an economist. Mebbe it's reassuring to think that one has completed a certain body of work that allows oneself to claim a certain cache of Economist. How many of Chris Baum's papers must one have read to proclaim oneself "Economist"? Must one have a complete understanding of the Pigou Effect in order to have, or hold, certain beliefs about ones own wealth?

I don't think so. I've watched shoppers at the local supermarket, and rarely do I find expressions of surprise as clerks ring-up their customers' purchases. Which would be the case if the only way one could shop would be to receive from that market a randomly filled shopping cart that was issued to the shopper. Under this model, vegans would be buying meat. Men would be buying lipstick. And kids would be buying vitamin supplements.

And there would be expressions of surprise as their purchases were being toted up.

I see none of that.

Every customer of that supermarket is an economist. They enter the store with certain ideas about which products they will demand. And then they will attempt to satisfy that demand through such market signals as price and quality. Why do I buy Del Monte instead of the generic store brand? Quality. When Del Monte goes on sale do I buy more than usual? Yes.

So I puzzled by these "puzzled economists" written of by this obtuse author.

Oregon's central planning models are causing inefficiencies in the market place for labour. And there are a plethora of these inefficiencies.

Here's just a couple. What is Oregon's Minimum Wage Rate? $8.40 an hour. The federal rate? $6.55. So, for starters, there is this thirty percent premium one must pay to hire someone in Oregon rather than hiring this same entry-level worker in Idaho. Or North Dakota.

Building and new construction costs in Oregon are another barrier. The voters in the Metro area want to retain the park-like quality of their visits to the Coast, so they have put in place rules that prohibit rural counties from allowing development of affordable housing first, and then any type of commercial development, second. That is, rather than allowing us to build starter homes for families that are starting out, we instead create a financial scheme that requires those families to buy homes that are too expensive, with subsidized mortgages.

We can then add in the administrative and regulatory atmosphere that any business must deal with when attempting to conduct business in Oregon. Micro-managing pollutants, the excessive zeal of Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality is a group of environmental brown-shirts parading as green. In train, a collection of psycho-environmentalists whose financial well-being is assured by grants and gifts of this cryptically motivated agency.

But, our author is not able to find economists with a clear understanding of the current in situ reasons for our state's decline in employment. So, I checked on the author. Who is able to maintain his own wiki page. A Pulitzer Prize winner.

People wonder why newspapers like the Oregonian are victim of declining sales. It's reportage like this that underscores my reason for no longer spending my money on this periodical.

Several Sundays ago, I was at my club and came across a copy of the Oregonian. I read with interest an article on food preparation in a Lesser Developed Country. Of course it included a condemnation of those practises, since they--the reader was assured--were contributing to the current Climate Crisis. The lack of editorial function was astounding. Here was an article that was condeming the practise of using charcoal for cooking since it increased the amount of particulants in the atmosphere. While noted scientists have pointed out that it is in fact these particulants that have helped to ameliorate the increase in planetary warming in the face of their theoretical curse of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

The point is, any story can be manipulated into supporting whatever crack-pot theory one wishes to hold. As long as there is a lack of intellectual honesty. Or, perhaps, simple curiousity.

Do you need to be an economist to make sound judgements about your own wants and needs? Nopers. And you prove that every time you enter a supermarket and return home with the items you wanted. That's how economics works. You don't need a nanny standing over your shoulder approving what it is that you buy.

Yet. They're working on it.

Useful "Stimulus Bill" Map

Found on Doug Ross at Journal.

You need flash to view it, but once it loads, just hover your mouse over your home county.

I live in Clatsop county, the furthest northwest point in Oregon. Just take a look at what our community is doing with "our" stimulus dollars.

You can almost hear those new home sales closing.

The map is here.
.

Reconciling the Unreconcilable: The President at Our Lady

(Click on pic, or click here. You will be taken to a C-Span webpage. Click on the "Flash Video" icon on the right side and a video window will open.)

"And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity -- diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief." (President Obama, May 17, 2009.)

It's possible that for a great many of you who come here, that I have read or watched a lot of stuff you've never seen. My interest is in "how" Leftists get to where they have got, and how they create a system of thought and belief that is in such stark contrast to my system of thought and belief.

As an aside, if you have access to CNBC, tonight at 6pm there promises to be an interesting roundtable on capitalism. From the promos that have run so far this morning, one word repeatedly grabbed my interest: trust.

I also want to apologize to you. When I started the "Carrots" series, it was my intention to bring the reader up to a level of Freshman Econ 101. (Hence, the tag "Econ 101".) There still lies in the "draft" bin a post on resource allocation and the dilemma of scarcity. It's an important non-post, since I rely so much on an understanding of how the market deals with the problem of resource allocation and scarcity, and what passes for education on the Left. The propaganda that is being peddled by the Left on these issues was brought home last Summer, as my recently high school graduated son and I spent time repairing the damage to my home and office due to the December, 2007 hurricane.

My son's teachers adhered--and adhere--to a definite Leftist cant. English, science, history, his teachers repeated the mantra of the Left. Republicans are anti-science exploiters who are ruining the world with their greedy corporations. Class dismissed.

If this is the reduction of the education experience of our youngsters, it's not surprising that the silliness of this man's thoughts are treated with the apparent adulation that it received during the presentation of those thoughts.

This presentation is painful to watch.

But I implore you to watch it. This is the type of babble that you hear when Leftists get together. And it explains a great deal of how Leftists find themselves saying the things that come out of their mouths. In their rush to "reconcile", they throw the intellectual baby out with the bath water. Our President seeming to say one thing, and then contradicting that statement with his next? It isn't inconsistency. It's reconciling diversity. It's how the Left explains everything that it pronounces. Obama and the Dems quadruple our nation's annual deficit? It's because President Bush's administration sat over a large deficit. Sure, only a quarter of the size, but can't you see that there was no choice? There's old system concerns and new system concerns. And the job of our smart, sciency policy makers is to reconcile the old with the new.

What David Korten attempts to do is frightening in as much as he is able to make in-roads as a spokesman for the Left. When he talks about "phantom wealth," much of what he says could be interpreted by the Ron Paul crowd as a recognition that our fiat system is at the root of all faults found in Capitalism. Paulists are warned: this guy is going in a totally different direction.

If you follow--or attempt to follow--the sequence of utterances made by Mr. Korten, one is left with the idea that a better question than "how much does this cost?" would be "what good does this do?"

This is the starting point for the many folks in academia and the folks ensconced in policy offices around the state.

The market system, or what is referred to as our capitalist system, works because of our trust. I trust you to make your best, independent economic decision. You trust me, too. This is an essential feature of that old skeleton called liberty. It is in our economic liberty that we are truly free. Just like our farmer in the "Carrots & Bicycles", we move forward based upon our understanding of the opportunities that each of us has. Whether it's too much time on the x-box, or too much time landing that next big account, each of us makes choices.

And each of us is responsible for the outcome of those choices.

It is this economic liberty that is under assault by the Left. It is framed by the condemnation of money by Mr. Korten. Instead of asking how much is that SUV? and getting an answer of $50-thousand dollars, we should instead be told "three kids in the Sudan", or some such. For those of us who are well-read, the looney rantings of a guy like Mr. Korten should be dismissed as quickly as it takes to re-read the history of the former Soviet Union's attempt to create a moneyless society.

Markets are more powerful than governments. Whether it was the Lesser Developed Countries involved in the LDC crisis back in the '80's, or the current governments of Iran, Venezuela, and now, the United States, turning your back on the fundamentals of economic individualism and aggregation is a stupid policy. Even if it means that you're "putting things in terms of human value."

This is no different than the trendy profession of Lefty prof's from Lewis & Clark College during the '70's. Another restatement of the Labour Theory of Value. A policy that attempts to "put a human face" on political and economic policies. There is nothing new here. This is simply Marxism with another face. And it goes a long way in explaining how someone like our governor can see the expense of hiring more state workers is an economic solution to unemployment. While the money will come from the private sector, the benefits will accrue to us all. Beautiful, really. It's a closed-system.

Fortunately, we have the experience of such great men as Karl Popper.

What motivated me to mention Sir Karl was the role played by the Vichy during WWII. How many times must we be presented with "socialism with a different face" before we begin to see how important economic liberty is to us, to our system of government, and the future of our society? Are you surprised to find out that the Vichy accepted rule from Berlin? How was the socialism of the Germans different from the socialism of the Italians, and then different from the socialism of the French? How different will be the new face of socialism in America?

So, listen to the words of Mr. Korten, as painfully obscure as they are. Ask yourself how you would go about organizing an economic system if we continue to adopt the policies and practices of Mr. Korten, Governor Kulongoski, and Speaker of the House, Dave Hunt? It's not jobs, it's the "right" jobs. It's not investment. It's the "right" investment. And who will make the decision as to that which is "right"?

You can't guess?

They don't trust you. They don't trust me. We must be told, therefore, what to do or we will destroy the world, children, teachers and union employees. (Oh, I forgot, teachers are union employees.)

Teddy the K Loses Brain

Been waiting for it to happen. Oregon is looking at a minimum of 14 percent unemployment. The new budget numbers came out today, and they are horrible.

What does the Unigovernor propose?

"Today in an address to the City Club of Portland, Governor Ted Kulongoski announced an emergency jobs program to help put at least 12,000 unemployed Oregonians back to work this summer.

“'President Roosevelt gave hope to millions of unemployed Americans when he created the Civilian Conservation Corps and other jobs programs. We need to take the same kind of immediate action in Oregon,' Governor Kulongoski said.

"If approved by the legislature, jobs under the Governor’s plan would begin July 1 and target unemployed Oregonians seeking a salary range of $8.40 - $10.00 per hour. Currently, there are 80,000 unemployed individuals with active profiles with the Employment Department that have expressed an interest in being hired for a job that pays within this hourly wage range.

"Furthermore, the average unemployment payment right now is $250 per week. Under the Governor’s plan, a full-time job paying $8.40 an hour would be $336 per week.

"The plan, called the Oregon Emergency Jobs Program, requires legislative approval for a one-time redirection of approximately $90 million in future payments to the state’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. The fund currently amounts to $1.5 billion and has a dedicated funding source through regular payments by employers through payroll taxes."

Didga get it? How to grow jobs in Oregon? Just hire a buncha guys and givem money?

Complete comments by Governor Kulonzcynski here. (pdf)

You Can't Handle The Truth!

Click here.

I laughed.

Feds Seek Greater Control Over Oregon Resources

Which I'm sure will cheer those who reside in their fear-based community that any development in Oregon will start the death-knell of "Oregon As We Know It".

Yet again, let me re-state: Oregon is the tenth largest state in the United States. And less than two percent of this giant landmass is considered developed land. Most of our counties are larger than the smaller states in the United States. Harney county is larger than the ten smallest states. Clatsop county is about the size of Rhode Island. And yet we continue to be dominated by the economic imperialism of Multnomah county. Their population of 660-thousand people dwarfs our population of 35-thousand. (Rhode Island has more than a million people.) And because they live hamster warren lives, they cannot see that tiny Multnomah county--just 435 square miles--simply isn't a model that we want to emulate.

People would move here if they could. They would build factories and plants here, if they could. On news that funding has been approved to deepen the Columbia River channel, the attraction to access to international markets would make Clatsop county extremely competitive for investors. The company that owns the railroad to Astoria has already made it known, clearly, that as soon as there is demand for rail, improvements to the line into Astoria would be made. Everything would seem to be in place for an explosion of growth in Clatsop county.

Except for one thing: land use law.

So the fact that the Feds are seeking greater authority over Oregon's resources may be a moot point. Portland, the Port of Portland and Metro are jealously guarding their rights to be the only market in the state that can have an industrial base. They do not want any industrial development outside Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas counties. And to make sure it never happens, they continue to bang the drums over things like the environment, global warming, the destruction of "public" places, and then they question whether or not any proposed business investment is "sustainable." Yes. they are all sustainable. Just as sustainable as is GM or buggy whip manufacture. (How did sustainability become a by-word of economic development theory?)

While Oregon's "Big Look" was supposed to respond to demands from rural counties to increase local control over local development issues, the truth is, nothing has happened. Even though the Oregon Department of Forestry was supposed to come up with a plan to increase timber harvesting to benefit local counties, nothing has happened. Even though Oregon now has the second highest unemployment rate in the country, nothing has happened.

So when US Senators Oberstar (D-MN) and Feingold (D-WI) look to make greater intractibility in resource utilization, should we be concerned? Further locking up Oregon resources seems to be the major raisson d'etre of our Leftist senators, Merkley and Wyden. Look at the forest lands locked up just this year. No surprise that both Merkley and Wyden are co-sponsors of this bill.

The problem with S. 787(pdf) is that it goes further than any previous bill on control of a state's natural resources. States like resource rich Oregon will have to face additional layers of regulation when attempting to conduct our lives. Fishing will be affected. Housing will be affected. Timber will be affected. Farming and ranching could be reduced to rubble. Why? To appease Mother Gaia. And teh Loons who drive all this in the Metro area.

S. 787 is going to be another nail in the coffin. But unlike the self-inflicted harm we suffer under SB 100 and our State Land Use Board, we will need to create a new alter to worship. Is it Constitutional? These days there doesn't seem to be any limits to federal power. Those powers enumerated in the Constitution seem trivial.

Crushing Blow To Car Dealers

What your President is doing to business is criminal. Rilly. Violating Section 8 of the United States Constitution is criminal madness.

But you can hear crickets.

Seven Oregon Chrysler and fifteen Washington dealers have had their livelihood taken from them with the stroke of a pen. Chrysler, under pressure from President Obama, has negated their contract with these dealers. Period. What they had yesterday is gone.

Poof!

I watched Eddy Tonkin on CNBC last night and was impressed. Eddy is currently vice-chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association. Eddy did good. And he's in Washington, D.C. today asking for some common sense from our national legislature.

Good luck, Ed.

So, here's the list of local and Oregon dealers that have gotten the ax. I know a lot of these guys. My heart aches. They've lost their livelihoods because of Chicago Rules. You wanted change? You gotcher change.

Timberline Dodge
2406 NE Sandy Blvd.
Portland, OR

Gresham Chrysler Jeep
1990 E Powell Boulevard
Gresham, OR

Thomas Sales & Service
2060 NE Highway 20
Bend, OR

Sheppard Motors
2300 W 7th
Eugene, OR

D&R Motors
311 W Main St
Enterprise, OR

Dave Hamilton Chevrolet-Oldsmobile
2067 North Highway 97
Redmond, OR

Campbell Motors
1550 N First Street
Hermiston, OR

A&D Auto Sales
3712 NE 66th Ave
Vancouver, WA

Bud Clary
961 Commerce Ave
Longview, WA

Columbia Ford-Mercury-Lincoln
700 Seventh Avenue
Longview, WA

How long will you put up with this? If you don't complain, they'll just keep on keepin' on.

Rilly.

Commentor: Sockpuppet or Astroturfing

We are blessed by the internet. It allows friends and family across the globe access to these humble words.

It also allows for comments. My favs are "anonymous."

What anonymous commentors forget is that we have access to a wealth of information about them. So when a state employee comments "anonymously", he fails to remember that we have ways of knowing who you are.

Case in point, a comment to this post. And I ask you a question:

Is this sock puppetry? or 'turfing?

I know that Speaker Pelosi has claimed that the Tea Protests occured as a result of 'turfing. So, which is it, the puppet or the turf?

A Brief Essay On Evil by Roger L. Simon

Click on the headline, or click here.

Most of what I have to confront on a day-to-day basis is simple ignorance, confidently masked as knowing better than I.

What Mr. Simon faced chills to the bone. And frighteningly is the result of strongly held beliefs that require religious fervour to maintain. The kind of forces that encourages an end to contract law. Private ownership. Making your own choices. To the worrying about man's existence as he is a cancer on this world.

When do intentions morph into monsters? I know from an Iranian friend of our family who lived with us in the early '60's that there was significant opposition to the rule of the Shah. (This man was a gifted musician and became a friend of our family after studying under my dad at Portland State.)

Our modest Westside home was an unthinkable result of our amazing American prosperity. To think that a middle-class high school and part-time college teacher could afford such a house. And a seven-year old Cadillac! He was a great conversationalist--and a great cook--who would talk about the conflicts between the way he was raised and the world of the West. He talked about the energy of freedom while musing about the people who lived in the villages that his family owned. That is, the people of the villages his family owned. They owned the people.

How to achieve a leap forward?

The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was an accident of French anti-Americanism and coincident disaster by the American voter. To think people don't hold grudges is immature. There was still a bit of payback for a former Suez adventure to administer. That they found the unthinking and unblinking in President Jimmy Carter was a trifecta of opportunity that they couldn't pass up. And the reign of terror in the Middle East began.

To see a return to those days in our currently stated foreign policy is cloaked within penumbras and emanations that I find frightening. To see the monster face to face must be galvanizing.

It was to Mr. Roger L. Simon.

Lookin' For A Turnin' Point Here, Boss!

If you have visited this space from time to time, there are a couple of things that are fundamental in addressing the proposed policies of government. Things like, an understanding of microeconomic principles. Like, understanding that macroeconomic analysis is best when examined as a dynamic, rather than static phenomenon.

And, of course, there is a background in some pretty basic math.

In my experience, I have never known a politician that could tell what "it is" in the image above. Most politicians, in my experience, are borderline dyslexics. It is with this insight that I, among others, was unsurprised to find that none of the politicians that voted for the Stimulus Bill had read it. It is almost a certainty that no legislator reads the legislation for which he is going to cast his vote. There are elected officials and there is staff. They are all politicians.

Elected officials talk about things. Then they direct staff to write the language that would purportedly put the things that they talk about into law. This is why we spend billions of dollars each year on accountants. Most laws are so poorly written that they have no clear meaning. And since most of what accountants do is related to math, most mathematical discussions of policy end up trumping the policy makers. This, I hope, explains the Mad Magazine "Spy versus Spy" mentality of the Internal Revenue Service. The government hires guys that have math experience to go after guys who were complete geeks and nerds during their undergraduate years. If you were good at the numbers, do you think you'd make more as a CPA in private practise or as a Revenoor for the Gubbermint? Clearly, the guys at Revenue are tier two candidates. But they do get a reliably delivered check with reliably negotiated benefits.

Which brings us to our modern conundrum: What the hell are these guys thinking?

Coupla things happening this week.

First, our state's economist will be giving his Economic and Revenue Forecast.

You and I can already tell our state's legislators what that news is going to bring; the economy is in worse shape than was related in the last Economic and Revenue Forecast, and the amount of revenue coming into state coffers will be lower than was expected in the last Economic and Revenue Forecast.
Remember the graphic above? It's representative of a pretty simple math problem. With just a few variables. Can you imagine how many variables would have to be in a mathematical model of a states economy? What would some of those variables be? And which of those variables would be considered endogenous variables rather than exogenous?

Back in the '80's it was discovered that the state economist issued his Economic and Revenue Forecasts based upon on simple observation: what happened in the immediate past? If you're a gambler, you know about the predictive power of that observation. If you just won a hand of poker, chances are pretty good that you're going to win the next hand. The same is true of State Economists. If the economy is going into the toilet, chances are the economy is going to continue to go into the toilet. What gamblers and state economists have in common is that they're both looking for "turning points."

Statistically, hitting a hot streak is nearly impossible to prove if looked at as a mere theoretical. One of these precepts is held within the concept of the "fair deal." That is, if all possible variants of an actual deal are based upon the likelihood of certain cards being dealt to all the players remains random, the likelihood of any individual player having a greater likelihood of success is equal.

But as the game progresses, is that actually true?

Likewise for our state's economist, many of the assumptions that go into an econometric model that would tend to show statistical evidence for certain beliefs in economic outcomes must rely upon the randomness of the economic activities being observed. But, in neither case is this necessarily true.

Our Oregon Legislature, like a card shark, continually stacks the deck.

From forcing us to use dumb gas for our cars, to requiring the power company to invest in dumb energy to power our homes and businesses, to spending billions of dollars on dumb light-rail, our legislature continues to tax and spend their way into increasingly stupid economic conditions.

The worst tool of economic analysis out there has got to be Keynesian Economics, as taught by your local high school teacher. Since most public school teachers are severely math challenged, these public school teachers rely upon caveats inculcated during their undergraduate days. From psychology they pick up a little of Maslow. For economics, they pick up something called the "multiplier effect." And then they graduate. And then they start to teach new generations.

What passes for brilliant thinking, relying upon the Multiplier Effect, is that for every dollar spent by the government, five dollars in GNP is created. Or, words to that effect.

I noticed the other day a sign in the window of a downtown shop relating words to that effect when shopping for consumables. Something like, "every dollar you spend at our store increases the amount of money in our community by a factor of five. Every dollar spent at a chain store is money going out of the community and is lost." I paraphrase.

I went into the store and noticed that not a single product in the store was manufactured locally. So, I was totally at a loss as to what benefit would accrue to my community by my patronage there, rather than at the "big box" store down the street. The "big box" store employed more people. I rather suspect that they pay more in property taxes, too. All in all, I decided that if I really cared about my community that I would be better off paying lower prices at the "big box" than I would at a company that only claimed that I would be better off if my community shared the wealth of that store's multiplier effect.

This store owner forgot that the economy is dynamic, not static. The matrix upon which I base my decisions is not straight-jacketed by his pronouncement of the Multiplier Effect. If I got better service, maybe I'd patronize his store. If he had a better selection, I'd patronize his store.

But with higher prices and lower service, I'm better off at the "big box."

Politicians--as a class--seem to be stuck in the '40's with only Keynes' Multiplier Effect to hang their policy hats upon. They can't see that a dollar taken from the private sector is a dollar less the private sector has to improve productivity. That its a dollar less to provide employment, investment in new buildings and equipment. That's its a dollar less to provide better service.

They see taking that dollar as having a Multiplier Effect through their spending of that dollar.

And so they continue to depress the private market while increasing the public spending...all chasing that nebulous Multiplier Effect. All the while continually depressing the private sector. Because, somewhere, without the tools to inquire or verify on their own, they were told that the caveat "Multiplier Effect" was all they needed to know. And, like the dyslexic struggling in schools learning to overcome their deficiencies in reading with improved verbal skills, so to our political class continues to jawbone our problems without any fundamental concept of what it is they are doing, are continuing to do, and are committed to do.

And I, like you and our state's economist, are waiting for turning points.
I don't think we're going to get any during this session.

Good Idea In Salem: Dems Will Kill It

People who get their checks from the government will be against it.

In Oregon, that seems to be a lot of people. So, while a good idea--especially as Oregon seems to want to lead the nation in unemployment--it's going to get killed.

But, for your edification, here's the plan from the Party of No (Republican Party):

Republicans propose budget that protects core services without increasing taxes

Back to Basics Budget lets service areas replay 2007-09 funding levels

Salem, OR – House and Senate Republicans announced a Back to Basics Budget plan on Tuesday. The plan funds a full school year, protects prioritized service areas like public safety and human services by giving them the same funding levels they received in the last two year budget and creates a $1.374 billion surplus for targeted legislative add-backs and contingency reserves.

“This budget protects our most important priorities: quality education for our kids, safe neighborhoods and services for the most needy and vulnerable,” said Senator Chris Telfer (R-Bend). “Republicans applied the same philosophy that Oregon families and small businesses are applying to their budgets, funding what is most important with what we have, tightening our belt and being fiscally responsible. If we do those things, we don’t have to talk about raising taxes on Oregon families and small businesses in these tough times.”

Highlights of the Back to Basics Budget include:

The plan starts with the assumption that Oregon government does not need to increase taxes in order to provide the services that Oregonians need and value.

The plan funds K-12 education with $6.245 billion, holding schools harmless with a zero cuts budget that ensures kids can receive a quality education through a full school year.

The plan protects public safety, human services and other core functions by giving them at a minimum the exact budget they had last cycle.

The plan leaves a $1.374 billion surplus for legislative add backs, enhancements, contingencies and reserves.

The plan leaves $457 million of our state reserves intact.

Republicans built the Back to Basics Budget using a philosophy that funds the most important, core services first. This budget creates a starting point that holds services like K-12 education, higher education, public safety agencies and human services providers harmless from any cuts from their 2007-09 funding levels.

To protect these priorities, the budget uses $911 million in Federal Stimulus money and $457 million from the Rainy Day and Education Stability Funds, leaving $457 million left in reserves. The budget also uses $429 million in savings and efficiency enhancements. After funding each core service at their 2007-09 level, the budget leaves $1.374 billion for the legislature to make targeted add-backs to the most important priorities.

“The way Oregon budgets must be fixed,” said Senator Frank Morse (R-Morse). “Past practices are simply not sustainable. Government must find ways to improve performance and demonstrate the ability to reduce costs. Ultimately, core services and functions of government can be preserved without raising taxes. ”

In the past, the legislature has started the budget discussion with an automatic, no-questions-asked increase to state agencies, called the “Essential Budget Level.” The legislature doesn’t require agencies to come before the budget writing committee and justify why they need increases in their base levels of spending like a business would. The Legislature has handed out increases without asking tough questions about what drives the cost of state government and how we can better prioritize. The result is out-of-control spending and insurmountable deficits. In fact, over the last ten years our state budget has increased by more than 75%.

“This is a fundamental change to the way the legislature budgets,” said Representative Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg). “Oregonians are hurting and having to make tough choices in their budgets at home and in their businesses right now. We think Oregon government should be making the same tough decisions and start managing taxpayer dollars with responsibility.”

So, the Party of No has come up with a budget proposal that makes sense. The State can afford it. It recognizes that the growth of government has been uncontrolled (unsustainable).

Too bad your state representatives, Witt, Boone and Johnson, will vote against it. But, that's who you elected.

Have a nice day.

UPDATE: (Click on pic at bottom for larger image.)

One comment has been posted so far. Posted "anonymously." But it's interesting to note that the comment came from Salem, on the state's domain server. So it's probably safe to assume that it is either an employee of the state, or perhaps the friend or family of an employee that had access to the state's internet server.

My question is, does this cross the line into Sock Puppetry? Is this an example of "getting turfed"?

Readers of NW Republican may be aware of the the "Moonbat Rule Book" posted on the right sidebar of that site. I am, happily, the author of Rule 10. That is, it has been my experience that the Left is unaccustomed to arguing in good faith. In my book, calling someone a liar in the first sentence of any argument. People that can't argue without calling others names find themselves unable to comment here. For those who speak fluent Moonbatese, it is sufficient unto the day to find that Republicans have again lied. They are free to move on.

Examining the content of the comment, one is impressed with a blizzard of numbers. And the impecunious manner that these numbers are introduced to the reader. First under the commentor's knife? The base point for the Republican plan.

The plan under discussion was put together following the assumptions of the state economist in his April report of March numbers. (The new report is due out this Friday. I wrote about this here.)

So to argue against a plan based on the current "official" revenue expectations report is prolly not consistent with the comment author's predicate that the Republican plan "is not an honest effort." You can't have it both ways. If you suppress the truth to make a point, the sin may not be mortal. But it is venal.

Then another blizzard of words. If I were a young man working for a less than gifted state legislator, I know that I could comfort her with these words. I'd even write them down so that she could read them. Point being, if we "lose" $512-million in federal "stimulus" money so that we fail to further increase the size of our state's welfare system, I will not be disappointed. The Left sees these funds as a blessing. I see them as a curse. But "sustainability" is a word used to criticize fossil fuels, not government spending. We are, alas, worlds apart.

Finally, the issue of unspent budgeted funds. Taking funds that have been allocated and remain unspent, returning those funds to the General Fund makes sense. Our dear anonymous Salem commentor fails to share the way these funds will be recaptured. But that's not the point for our dear commentor.

The point is, budget issues in Salem are wierd, arcane and at times, simply opaque. And the commentor relies upon the Byzantine budget system to occlude from our view from the simple question, "where are the dollars, do we need to keep them there and can we use those dollars to provide the services that a State must provide?"

The the ballyhoo of the street huckster offering you a chance to double your money in a game of Three Card Monte, the conclusion of this commentor reeks of the conman. I'm reminded of an old saying a former econ prof shared with me: "If you can dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

More Layers of Government

Oregon's government has seen explosive growth during the past ten years. Attempts to gain insight over the administration of the state's bureaucracy have been met with resistance. Republican bills to allow legislative oversight have been defeated session after session. And the moving hand, having writ, moves on.

One of the things we grow best in Oregon are commissions. We have commissions on women and asians. We have an Advocacy Commission, Black Affairs Commission, Children and Families Commission. Don't forget the Columbia Gorge Commission, the Criminal Justice Commission, the Disabilities Commission and the Government Ethics Commission. Perhaps you knew about Oregon's Hispanic Affairs Commission and the Lane County Local Government Bounddary Commission. You are, I'm sure, aware of the Liquor Control Commission.

We have a commission for fish, a commission for patient safety (which it seems to me more likely to be concerned with patient dangers), and a commission for public utilities. In order to have tracks and gambling, we have a commission for racing. Students have a commission that is supposed to assist them somehow. Prolly financially.

Why they combined tax supervising and conservation into one commission is a puzzler. It was created in 1919, so I suppose the thought was, why make two boards when one will do. A progressive idea if there ever was one. If you think about the protections afforded us Oregonians in the last 90 years by this progressive board, you'll probably agree that retiring this much lauded and often referred to agency is a bad idea.

There's a commission that deals with teachers. But we all know that teachers have the union. The tourism commission has stuff printed. And Oregon would be worse off with less printed stuff.

And I haven't even listed the councils and boards.

So why be surprised when our new Labor Commissioner establishes a new commission? He had to do it. Even though we have all these existing commissions, we didn't have one dedicated to civil rights. Of course we have judges and courts, but is that enough? We have men and women in the state senate and house, but is that enough? And of course we have Commissioner Avakian himself. But that obviously is not enough.

Nope.

We needed another commission. And it took Labor (how do you spell it without the requisite "u"?) Commissioner Avakian to ring the bell on this new day. It seems redundant that a Commissioner would create a new commission. Why have a labour commission in the first place, if it lacks the authority for taking a view at civil rights protection? Could it be that the Bureau of Labor and Industry doesn't have the authority? Or, is it that Commissioner Avakian is trying to distance himself from that authority?

Well, if we are to be measured against other states by the number of our commissions, maybe it is just that we lack the number and sheer size of a state bureaucracy to compete with the big boys. It just seems silly that the more we do, the more we become like California.

So, let's applaud the work of our new Labor Commish. In the face of declining state revenues, he unabashedly moves to increase the size of our government.

Huzzah!

Democrat Control More Destructive Than Al-Qaeda

On September 11, 2001, operatives of the group known as Al-Qaeda gained control of four aircraft. With these four aircraft, three buildings at the World Trade Center were reduced to rubble. A gaping hole was left in the side of the Pentagon. And an airplane buried itself into the ground in Pennsylvania.

Beyond the lives lost was the intention of these terrorists: to disrupt the economy of the United States of America. A goal that they achieved.

During the days and weeks that followed that morning's attacks, we reacted in horror. Fear. Anger. Beyond the loss of lives and the buildings that were the objects of these attacks, economic activity slowed to a crawl. I know. Just as you know. If you're in the private sector.

Cash stopped flowing. People were holding on to their cash "in case." If you think about it, most of us can remember businesses that went under in the months that followed. For those of us who survived there is a quiet, private badge that we can wear as survivors. Which makes us distinctly different than those who receive their paychecks from public dollars. During the weeks, months and years that have followed the events of 9/11, not a single government employee missed a check. Not a teacher. Not a planner. Which brings us to the chart below.

Al-Qaeda struck at the end of III Quarter, 2001. The contraction of our economy was immediate. To stimulate the economy, the government enacted a series of economic measures to stimulate investment and production. In the private sector. Unlike the bank crisis of last Fall, the crisis faced by companies like American Express were truly existential. AmEx lost people. Their offices. But, they carried on.

Insurance companies, it was feared, were facing some of the greatest claims ever faced. Insurance companies, it was feared, could fail. But, they carried on.

What did take place was a quick reduction in the amount of taxes that were levied against us. In the private sector. It gave us more of our money. And if you take a look at the graph above, we were tracking back to budgetary surpluses until the housing bubble popped. Government action was swift. And returned us back to our recent history's recent high level of federal budgetary shortfall. The deficit at the end of 2008 was, in inflation adjusted terms, about where we were at the low point found in 2004.

This crisis, we were told, was truly existential. Financial firms could fail. Insurance companies could fail. And the response to this failure was distinctly different.

In 2001, these firms and institutions carried on. This time, they were told that they couldn't carry on without the help and intervention of the federal government. But this time, instead of creating the macroeconomic effects necessary for self-healing, the government told us, and firms, that they would need to become directly involved in the administration of these businesses. TARP, TALF, Stimulus.

In the meantime, the markets are somewhat quietly knitting together the fabric of our nation's economy. Some days are better than others. Given the value of commercial and home mortgages that has to be wrung from the economy due to the real estate bubble, I've thought that the bottom of the market was going to be around 8500. Until the excess valuation from the real estate market is eliminated. I will admit I was somewhat amazed when values dropped to the 7000 level. But something happened along the way to recovery.

The Stimulus Bill. Just looking at the graph above it's easy to see that having the Democrats gain control of the House, Senate and Presidency has had a greater negative economic impact than did the attacks of 9/11.

Did government policy towards home ownership create the real estate bubble? Yes. Did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fraudulently acquire sub-standard housing mortgages? Yes. Is there any accountability for this massive fraud? Nope. And the players who were able to use Senate rules to resist reform of Freddie and Fannie now have control of the chamber...and it looks like their going to have the numbers to resist any call for accountability.

Markets are more powerful than governments. Just ask the doyens of the former Soviet Union. A country that had more than 75 years of practise in elites determining the production practises of a nation. For those of you with a background in mathematics there must be an appreciation for the size of the matrices used in their calculations to advance the moral superiority of the modern socialist nation. (Note to Governor Kulongoski: these planners are available at below market wages!) Also, with those with a background in mathematics, it is apparent from the graph above that our economy had reached a turning point in 2004, and the our federal budgetary deficit was on track to move back into surpluses within the next few years. Had not the real estate bubble popped.

The market is repairing. Even in the face of withering future inflation rates. The market knows it's going to have to create a lot of wealth to pay for this vision of the future. Too bad that fewer and fewer of us will have private sector jobs to pay for this vision. But, I guess, that's the plan. Or, should I say, Vision?