In Defense of Blagojevich…

Unless you have been living in a cave you know that the Governor of Illinois is in trouble for auctioning off the Senate seat of President-elect Barack Obama. This is because Governors have the right to appoint the replacement when Senators resign or leave office for whatever reason. I would argue that auctioning off the Senate seat would actually be more efficient then the Governor picking someone. Of course, this is assuming that the money goes to the state budget.

If we assume that the people bidding on the Senate seat are self made men, as in they did not receive a dime from the federal government in a subsidy, then it would be more efficient. Think about this. If the Senate seat goes to the highest bidder then they obviously want it the most. They are now the most invested. Isn’t this what politicians do anyways during elections? The raise money and 9 times out of 10 the highest fundraiser wins. To go with the first assumption that they are self made, then we also assume that they are probably a very successful businessman. In a Capitalist society, one must using their money wisely to stay rich and assuming he is a self made man means he has made good investments.

Since the highest bidder has worked hard and made lots of money all the while making good investments, he will be more invested in the economy. At a time like this we need people who better understand business. Not to say that you need to be a businessman to know throwing money at a problem doesn’t fix it i.e. teenagers. Now let’s take a look at the opposite way this system is suppose to work without auctions.

So now we must assume that no one can even secretly bid for this seat. The next door neighbor can not even come over with cookies. Then the decision is completely up to the Governor. Who would he pick? Well, if we assume he wants to not look selfish and keep his position, himself is out. That leaves family and friends. Now it would be come graph of trying not to look selfish by giving it to his brother or wife but at the same time keeping that person close, we should come out with his best friend who looks good on paper.

So you tell me whats better a sucessful business man or someone who is a good friend of the Governor of Illinois?

If we assume the point of a Republic is to have the representative represent the populous. I would imagine the businessman who made his money in the community and has spent a lot of money in that same community would do a better job. This is not to say that a special election would solve all of these problems but since that wasn’t an option. I personally think an auction is more efficient than a random appointment.

~PCCapitalist

Where can Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians run to?

Every year we hear about Liberals and Democrats running across the border to Canada to live after a Republican gets elected. I even posted a video a few days ago making light of that. An article from Slate Magazine brings up a good point. Where can Republicans threaten to run to if Obama wins? Here is what they came up with:

• Israel “Kory Bardash, the chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel, argues that Americans in Israel, who are largely Jewish, are not nearly as stridently supportive of Obama as their domestic counterparts. Bardash describes American voters in Israel as “Joe Lieberman Democrats” who might have backed Bill Clinton but who don’t connect with Obama’s domestic message and are more persuaded by charges that he lacks experience in foreign affairs. (Hillary Clinton won a majority of the Israel vote in the Democrats Abroad primary.) Israel’s political leanings are difficult to fact-check, but it’s safe to say that U.S. Republicans seeking refuge in Israel won’t have too much difficulty finding kindred spirits.”
• Poland “If Israel is the destination for conservatives primarily concerned with the threat of Islamic terrorism, Poland is the logical choice for the anti-Communists chiefly concerned with new Cold War tremors. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Poland has been a poster child for a rebuilt democracy. Its GDP grew 6.5 percent in 2007, though the annual inflation rate was more than 4 percent. It’s a religiously devout (and overwhelmingly Catholic) country, a NATO ally, and a likely strategic partner for years to come.”
• The Cayman Islands “Fleeing for the Cayman Islands is a bit of a retreat to the womb for despondent Americans; the three tiny Caribbean islands are a British territory still highly dependent on the crown. This is the destination for wealthy, free-market conservatives looking to wait out Democratic reign in Washington. Because there is no direct taxation, the islands are a hub for offshore banking and other financial services.”
• Ireland “Several readers make a case for Ireland. Abortion is mostly illegal in the country. The political parties are center-right, and the country’s corporate tax of 12.5 percent is extremely friendly to industry, including Microsoft and Intel. Native Irishman Marc Bruton says: “As an Irishman living in the U.S. for 12 years (who is currently horrified by McCain/Palin), I have to say there is nowhere more America-like than the country of my birth. They’d love it. … And it has some great golf courses!” The country is largely religious, and English is the second of two official languages. And they have a history of welcoming Republicans. “You can’t get too hung up on the JFK connection,” advises Paul Sheridan. “Reagan got as big a welcome when he visited in the ’80s.”
• Australia “Australia’s devotion to laissez-faire economics makes it an attractive target for free-market conservatives, and the fact that they speak English will be attractive to anyone who finds Polish too difficult to pick up. (Several Polish readers wrote in to point out that this will be a major hurdle for Americans.) The conservative Heritage Foundation ranks Australia at No. 4 on its economic freedom index, following Hong Kong, Singapore, and Ireland. (The United States is No. 5.) The open spaces will attract conservatives sick of claustrophobic urban politics. “It has a Wild West mythos analogous to that of the U.S., but unlike our own West, where states like Colorado are becoming increasingly urban and Democratic, the Outback remains sparsely settled and free of large cities,” writes Philip, who wanted only his first named printed. “Australia is also the native land of Rupert Murdoch and Mel Gibson.” Several others, including newly uncloseted Obama supporter Christopher Buckley, suggested New Zealand as well. (“Fun fact,” writes Rob Killion. “New Zealand is probably Australia’s Canada.”)

So to break it down the “War-Hawk Wing” of the Republican party would fit well in Israel and Poland. The Cayman Islands would be good for the “Libertarian Wing” of the party. Finally, the social Conservative wing could go to Ireland.

The rest of this article is here.

~PCCapitalist

The 2000 Election Bailout?

Almost anyone who was anyone remembers the Florida recount after the Presidential election in the year 2000 between Former Veep Al Gore (now beloved Nobel Prize Winner and Activist) and Former Governor George W. Bush (now President).

When you think about government and like I, was reading Plato’s Republic on democracy and tyrants, you begin to wonder about how were we able to so peacefully transition with a contested election. Had this been a Roman election there would have been blood or the very least mysterious deaths. When Plato mentions what it takes to get a democracy, which he believes is revolution, he also mentions what it takes to get a dictator. This is what Plato has to say:

“When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.”

With current bailout, we treat Wall Street like a bunch of drunken fools “too deeply of the strong win of freedom.” We allow Secretary Paulson to rise and “calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.”

But is it democracy that is becoming a bunch of drunken fools who have taken their freedom to regulate us and regulate these industries that need to be called out and punished? I would say yes, very much so.

That begs the question that no one will ever answer and no one will ever ask. Lucky for you, I will. Do we need a tyrant to kick down the door and tell Bush, Paulson, Pelosi, and others to get out of the way? Had Bush or Gore been a tyrant and seized power would we be in this situation today?

Of course, my answer is no. We do not need a tyrant but we do need a leader. We need someone who will stand up to the American people and stop playing games of politics and actually do what is right. We need someone who knows economics and believes in small government.

We must do it through the means that are necessary, which is without government. Will that lead us to ruin? Maybe, so. No, democracy has lasted forever and there is a reason for that. It has something to do with tyrants who take over for the good and turn. But it also has something to do with the people.

Back to the 2000 election, did the Supreme Court act as a bailout of our democracy? Had all the votes been counted, we would have had Bush still. But the Supreme Court intervened and we stayed peaceful, not that there was a threat of the opposite. It was just insuring the just in case moment. Of course, Gore is a lot more popular than Bush now a days.

It is just funny to think the American people have been burned by a dictator not so long ago, but yet we forget what small government was like and we have become much bigger than the government in which we broke away from. Democracy can be just as corrupt as a dictator.

~Marxsevelt

David Friedman on getting blamed…

This I found to be utterly hilariously and true from David Friedman. When people ask me why I am so angered with the Republican Party, which is suppose to be the party of small government. Yes, even with these massive bailouts. Here it is:

“Someone had asked another Usenet poster:

“How do you feel about the line, “I want you to vote for me, because I support smaller government”?

I replied:
1. It gives me very little information about what he will do if elected.

2. But it does mean that, since he is pretending to be one of us, we will get blamed for what he does, even if it has nothing to do with the views we support.

That’s why, on the whole, I thought it would be better if Bush had lost the most recent election–not that his opponent would have been any better but that at least we wouldn’t have gotten blamed for what he did.”

This is perfect. This is the exact thing you see when someone blames Capitalism for the current crisis. Also when these bailouts fail the country miserably small government Republicans are going to be blamed for that too. This is the biggest small government bailout in history.

David Friedman’s post is here.

~PCCapitalist

Homeless: Out of Sight, In-mind?

=

This from The National Review:

“During the upcoming Democratic convention, homeless residents of Denver will be given bus tokens as well as tickets to movies, the zoo, and museums – all located at conveniently great distance away from the convention center.”

Which looks a lot like this:

“(Because of the Olympics) Like thousands of others who packed Beijing’s main train station on Thursday, Li was prompted to leave town by a lack of work and an unwritten government policy encouraging migrant workers to clear out until the dignitaries and journalists have gone home.”

It seems like the popular thing to do is to sweep the homeless under the rug because we wouldn’t want them to ask the Democrats or foreigners visiting China for help. It seems that the leftist apple doesn’t fall far from the leftist tree.

Of course, I am not calling Democrats Communists. It is merely an observation that it seems that Democrats and Communists are using the same type of tactics.

The rest of the China article can be found here and the Denver one here.

~PCCapitalist

Socialist Woes in Iraq

It seems that the private sector isn’t moving fast enough and in Iraq the government is employing lots of people. This from the International Herald Tribune:

“In its (private sector) absence, the Iraqi government has been sustaining the economy the way it always has: by putting citizens on its payroll. Since 2005, according to federal budgets, the number of government employees has nearly doubled, to 2.3 million from 1.2 million.

Some economic advisers and members of Parliament worried that a raise for government workers could be a nightmare for others when a sudden flood of cash poured into the market. They argued that the raises should be phased in gradually to prevent a spike in inflation, which, at around 14 percent — a sea change from two years ago, when it neared 70 percent — has largely been tamed by a disciplined fiscal policy, robust oil revenues and an influx of low-cost imports.

But Iraqi citizens were desperate for the money. And lawmakers were thinking about elections.”

It sure didn’t take long for Iraqi politicians to figure out how to get re-elected easily. It is almost like human nature. Of course, I am not bashing Iraqi politicians, but this is just something that is innate in democracy. We hand out jobs, you elect us. Any rational self-interested politician/voter would agree. If they didn’t then they would lose. This is somewhat the “limit government paradox.” Those who want limited government will never get elected because limiting the government in turn limits your voters.

Next, on the whole issue of the private sector not performing well enough. This is a relatively quick change from a dictatorship to capitalism. Just like when countries switched from communism/socialism to capitalism. You are going to have a period of reallocation. This comes as a recession and there is no quick fix. The more you pump money into hiring people in the government, the more you crowd out other private investments.

The rest of the article is here.

~PCCapitalist

Stunting Consumer Spending

This is just an idea but if economic theory holds true and that when people recieve tax rebates or cuts but know they are not permanent, they usually do not change how they act. People only spend more when they know their income increased. This may have something to do with the Presidential Business Cycle.

Who spends money at a larger fraction? The rich. They spend more money because they have more money to spend it is simple. Even if you put trickle down economics aside, but realize that noone buys luxury goods as much as the rich and that those who make the luxury goods are most of the time not rich. This would bring you to the conclusion that trickle down is possible.

With Obama calling for more taxes on the rich and having an early lead in this race, does that make the rich save their money? I know that if I knew for sure that someone was coming to seal my money tomorrow, I would save today.

Now from Obama’s point of view, if he does this and the economy stagnates or recesses then he wins. He can be ushered in as the fixer. If he does this and the economy does well then he loses. The incentive is for Democrats to always say “Tax the rich!” and then say “The Economy Stupid!” Of course, one must keep in mind is it possible for a Presidental rhetoric to change the economy? Wall-Streeters would say yes. What do you say?

~PCCapitalist

Are we that different from Rome?

After watching the first season of Rome, that came on HBO, it dawned on me politics haven’t changed much in a thousand years. Rome, the series, was suppose to show the Roman empire for what it really was. If you look at a movie like Gladiator then you would notice that it is a more perfect view of Rome.

This is not a completely thought but I thought I would write it down and get some ideas out there. First, the United States like Rome for a very long time lived under the idea that the Republic is powerful and the senators ruled. If you would look at the United States, you would see that the President’s power has grown continually over the years. Our country is young and I am not saying that the President will take power and make the Congress unimportant but it shouldn’t be something we ignore. History is doomed to repeat itself if not studied well. Even when we look back in history and say who was the most important person in Roman history, most people would say Julius Caesar. The man who was assassinated as he was turning Rome into a dictatorship. They were unsucessful at preventing it but none-the-less, most people do not know who killed Caesar and more importantly do not know the people who first installed the Republic.

Next, we portray Rome to be fully of corruption and bribes but is it that different than pork spending and earmarks? Instead of doing it behind doors, we do ours in plain daylight and we are so good that everyone can know the exact amount of money you wasted and you will still be re-elected.

Finally, when we talk about monetary policy we notice that Rome fell into inflationary pressures as most modern governments do. As we know government prints the money and the more they print the more inflation goes up. In Roman times, they weren’t on a fiat standard because the gold you owned was in the coin. Instead they would chip off the corners of the coins. They were actually more restrained in this field than we did.

So I beg the question once again, are we that different from Rome? Most people know the Cato Institute but do you know why it is called that?

AFP: 2nd Annual Dream Summit

For those that do not know AFP stands for Americans for Prosperity. This is a great organization that works towards the libertarian/conservative mind set. Last year, I went and met most of the Presidential candidates on the Republican side. Here is their mission statement:

“Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP Foundation) is committed to educating citizens about economic policy and a return of the federal government to its constitutional limits.

● Cutting taxes and government spending in order to halt the encroachment of government in the economic lives of citizens and pointing out evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse.
● Removing unnecessary barriers to entrepreneurship and opportunity
● Restoring fairness to our judicial system by stemming the tide toward “over-criminalization” of economic activity spurred by over-active attorneys general.”

More of it can be found here.

So the new summit is going to be held at the Crystal Marriott Hotel. The speakers confirmed so far are Dinesh D’Souza, Steve Moore, Grover Norquist, Bob Ehrlich, and John Stossel. There are many more found here.

It is October 10th and 11th so if you are interested the registering link here.

I hope everyone takes a chance to go.

~PCCapitalist

Bob Barr for President

This video is long but it is well worth it and hear me out:

Tonight, I am endorsing former Congressman Bob Barr for President of the United States. He is the Libertarian party nominee. This was not an easy decision as I along with many others on this blog have always voted Republican.

Sure, every Republican hasn’t been perfect that I have voted for but the Democrat was always much worse. Due to the lack of the ability of being able to tell the difference between the two main party candidates, I believe it is time to vote for someone else.

Am I wasting my vote? I think not as this is a protest vote to the Republican party. We had a chance to pick a real conservative but we didn’t. I disagree with every candidate on something but I never disagreed with a candidate more. John McCain’s lack of being about to understand economics disheartens me and the direction of the Republican party.

I will not go on or try to sell you why Bob Barr is better than John McCain. You can do that research yourself. But I feel like the Barry Goldwater of 2008 so please join me and supporting Bob Barr for President of the United States.

~Marxsevelt