Plan to help Turkey hit Kurds shows Bush hasn't learned
My initial reaction to this article is to agree that us being actively involved in helping Turkey deal with Kurdish incursions into its territory (real or imagined) is a bad idea. The bigger question in my mind is why we are even involved with Turkey at all. The Cold War is over and even if Russia becomes a problem for the world again, Turkey will not likely play any vital role for us in any way.
They are a "moderate" Muslim country with a secular tradition of democracy and one of the few Muslim countries to recognize Israel. But every time they have an election, the people seem to pick religion-based, anti-American parties. It happened again earlier this month. The army then has to step in to restore "democracy" by removing any elected officials who don't tow the military line. This is obviously not a true democracy and if it ever becomes one it will likely be staunchly anti-American.
And beyond those few redeeming factors, what is the point of us getting any more deeply involved in their historic problems - especially in taking their side against one of our few success stories in Iraq - the Kurds? What good is a relationship with Turkey for us? Is I recall they were nothing but an obstacle to our invasion of Iraq. I disagreed with the invasion myself, but what good is an ally if they refuse to help us in an area where they can offer some of the best assistance?
Let's take a look from another angle though. Let's assume they are giving us something really valuable as our ally that is hidden from public view. Do we really want to make a deal with the Devil? Turkey, like Japan, has trouble coming to terms with admitting its own crimes against humanity. The Armenian genocide comes to mind here. It is, I believe, still officially banned from text books and has lead to more than a few deaths and death threats against public officials who say Turkey should admit to its role in the killings. We can also look to the "ethnic cleansing" of Greeks from mainland Turkey after WW I as well as from northern Cypress, not to mention the invasion of northern Cypress to supposedly protect the minority Turks.
Interestingly, while Turkey has no problem carving out a separate ethnic enclave for Turks out of a sovereign nation, they do have trouble with their own minority populations carving out a sovereign state for themselves. In this case the primary minorities being the Kurds in the southeast and Armenians in the northeast. Turkey has done a fairly good job of colonizing these areas with Turks to try and defeat any claims for ethnic autonomy, but this is just as a phony as it sounds.
My final question though is why we still have this strong relationship or feel this need to cater to Turkey. Is it solely because of their status as a secular Islamic nation and their help with Israel or perhaps against Iran? If that is the solely case, we should really reconsider what benefit this really is. My other thought is that we are constantly hearing that our support in Israel has more to do with us having such a large and influential Jewish population and pro-Israel lobbies in this country. I imagine there is some truth to this, but if it is true or least true to some extent, then why haven't we abandoned Turkey yet? We have substantial and wealthy populations of Armenian and Greek immigrants in this country and the subject of Turkey is one on which they all have a very negative opinion. That is compared to perhaps a handful of Turks.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Civil War and Federalism
One other thought to remember. Every major civil war has always ended with the stronger control central government. England, France, Russia, Spain, the U.S., the Meiji Restoration, China, Iran, Turkey and probably countless others.
In all of these revolutions, whatever the pretense, the result was always the national government taking more control accompanied by the abolition of regional independence. This leads me to conclude that most of the civil wars were about control rather than the ideals that they supposedly represented.
The U.S. Civil War being a great example of where "democracy" really meant - stronger control by the central government rather than the state governments, which are theoretically more answerable to their populations, being in ultimate control. Even the Fall of the Roman Republic can be characterized this way. Each side was pretending to save the Republic and each side became increasingly autocratic in its tactics.
In Yugoslavia, their civil war was cause by the central government attempting to exert more control over the relatively independent ethnic enclaves. The end result was of course several independent, but very centralized national governments rather than the more relaxed federalism under Tito.
My book will be called "The Pretense of Revolution." This is likely a natural result of every civil war being, at its heart, a military operation. The army most likely to succeed is the one that is most organized and centrally commanded. A centralized command, upon victory, retains that characteristic even after it has achieved victory and therefore constructs the new government in that image.
1. Ideals and idealism
2. The Military and central command
3. The Takeover
4. Abolition of competing political entities
5. The end of idealism
In all of these revolutions, whatever the pretense, the result was always the national government taking more control accompanied by the abolition of regional independence. This leads me to conclude that most of the civil wars were about control rather than the ideals that they supposedly represented.
The U.S. Civil War being a great example of where "democracy" really meant - stronger control by the central government rather than the state governments, which are theoretically more answerable to their populations, being in ultimate control. Even the Fall of the Roman Republic can be characterized this way. Each side was pretending to save the Republic and each side became increasingly autocratic in its tactics.
In Yugoslavia, their civil war was cause by the central government attempting to exert more control over the relatively independent ethnic enclaves. The end result was of course several independent, but very centralized national governments rather than the more relaxed federalism under Tito.
My book will be called "The Pretense of Revolution." This is likely a natural result of every civil war being, at its heart, a military operation. The army most likely to succeed is the one that is most organized and centrally commanded. A centralized command, upon victory, retains that characteristic even after it has achieved victory and therefore constructs the new government in that image.
1. Ideals and idealism
2. The Military and central command
3. The Takeover
4. Abolition of competing political entities
5. The end of idealism
Iraq - Positive Short Term News
Growing With Time by Charles Krauthammer
I read a lot of columnists (mostly considered conservative) but Charles Krauthammer is the one I seem to agree with most of the time. He is probably considered more of a libertarian than a conservative, so that it likely why I find myself agreeing with him so much. If I ever get around to deconstructing the basic principles of conservatism vs. libertarianism, I think I will find that his schema and mine are remarkably similar in construction.
His latest article is a lot different from his usually commentary about Iraq in that he is stating the positive things are finally happening - perhaps as a result of the much-touted "Surge" no less.
From the conclusion of the article: In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost -- al-Qaeda.
Here is the problem. The success he mentions is that the Sunni leaders is predominantly Sunni areas are "cooperating" with American forces in eliminating Al Qaeda in their home turf. This has nothing to do with the surge or with some pretense at cooperation on a national level. This has everything to do with local public sentiment turning against Al Quaeda for any number of reasons - principal among them probably being the competition for control of the area.
These Sunni leaders want power. They welcomed us a liberators initially because the defeat of the Saddam and the Iraqi central government meant more power for them. They turned against us when they saw that a central government backed by us would result in the loss of their power. As a result they let insurgent organizations and Al Qaeda (or Al Qaeda wannabes) run wild in attacking American troops. They likely neither backed nor supported these groups but preferred to see them waste their energy against Americans and driving them out.
Now the problem for them is that these elements are becoming too powerful for them in their own realms and are now a threat to them. Thousands of armed foreign fighters are eventually going to organize and attempt to control the areas they operate in for simple support and logistics purposes. This was why were able to Al-Zarquawi so quickly once he made himself known as a leadership presence. The local Sunni leaders don't mind a disorganized rabble sporadically attacking foreign troops sent by and in cooperation with a Shiite led central government (or any central government for that matter). They do, however, mind a separate organization setting up a political and military niche in their home territory.
The same will hold true in the rest of Iraq. My own suspicion is that the reason the Kurdish areas are so peaceful is because we have already made them semi-autonomous and put them under the direct control of the local leaders.
I still agree with the early predictions of many commentators prior to the invasion of Iraq that it is impossible to create an Iraq with a strong central government. Three (or more) semi-autonomous provinces would be the only arrangement that has any chance of succeeding. And as much as everyone hates the term "ethnic cleansing", the movement of the various ethnic groups in the Balkans has come close to producing a lasting peace there. The mass movement of people to areas where their loyalties lie and a big wall will likely stop the bombings that are now targeted more toward civilians than the military. The area around Baghdad itself might have a chance of becoming a multi-ethnic secular state, but it would have to be completely independent from the other areas of the country.
In short, Krauthammer's optimistic assessment of the situation may be correct in the short run, but this country will likely degenerate into civil war sooner or later as long as we cling the notion of creating a strong central government. The country is not ready for it. We can either create it for them now or let them create it for themselves after we leave. Either way, there is no point in risking American lives on this war any more not to mention the cost.
I read a lot of columnists (mostly considered conservative) but Charles Krauthammer is the one I seem to agree with most of the time. He is probably considered more of a libertarian than a conservative, so that it likely why I find myself agreeing with him so much. If I ever get around to deconstructing the basic principles of conservatism vs. libertarianism, I think I will find that his schema and mine are remarkably similar in construction.
His latest article is a lot different from his usually commentary about Iraq in that he is stating the positive things are finally happening - perhaps as a result of the much-touted "Surge" no less.
From the conclusion of the article: In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost -- al-Qaeda.
Here is the problem. The success he mentions is that the Sunni leaders is predominantly Sunni areas are "cooperating" with American forces in eliminating Al Qaeda in their home turf. This has nothing to do with the surge or with some pretense at cooperation on a national level. This has everything to do with local public sentiment turning against Al Quaeda for any number of reasons - principal among them probably being the competition for control of the area.
These Sunni leaders want power. They welcomed us a liberators initially because the defeat of the Saddam and the Iraqi central government meant more power for them. They turned against us when they saw that a central government backed by us would result in the loss of their power. As a result they let insurgent organizations and Al Qaeda (or Al Qaeda wannabes) run wild in attacking American troops. They likely neither backed nor supported these groups but preferred to see them waste their energy against Americans and driving them out.
Now the problem for them is that these elements are becoming too powerful for them in their own realms and are now a threat to them. Thousands of armed foreign fighters are eventually going to organize and attempt to control the areas they operate in for simple support and logistics purposes. This was why were able to Al-Zarquawi so quickly once he made himself known as a leadership presence. The local Sunni leaders don't mind a disorganized rabble sporadically attacking foreign troops sent by and in cooperation with a Shiite led central government (or any central government for that matter). They do, however, mind a separate organization setting up a political and military niche in their home territory.
The same will hold true in the rest of Iraq. My own suspicion is that the reason the Kurdish areas are so peaceful is because we have already made them semi-autonomous and put them under the direct control of the local leaders.
I still agree with the early predictions of many commentators prior to the invasion of Iraq that it is impossible to create an Iraq with a strong central government. Three (or more) semi-autonomous provinces would be the only arrangement that has any chance of succeeding. And as much as everyone hates the term "ethnic cleansing", the movement of the various ethnic groups in the Balkans has come close to producing a lasting peace there. The mass movement of people to areas where their loyalties lie and a big wall will likely stop the bombings that are now targeted more toward civilians than the military. The area around Baghdad itself might have a chance of becoming a multi-ethnic secular state, but it would have to be completely independent from the other areas of the country.
In short, Krauthammer's optimistic assessment of the situation may be correct in the short run, but this country will likely degenerate into civil war sooner or later as long as we cling the notion of creating a strong central government. The country is not ready for it. We can either create it for them now or let them create it for themselves after we leave. Either way, there is no point in risking American lives on this war any more not to mention the cost.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Euthanizing the U.S. Auto Industry
Charles Krauthammer sums up nicely some major problems with this unnecessary government interference in the market place.
If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, do it by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Let us drill in ANWAR and on the continental shelf (before Cuba does it for us). Use more nuclear energy or coal to generate power.
I have no sympathy for Detroit, but a government mandate is not going to change anything Detroit does. They produce bigger vehicles instead of more fuel-efficient cars because (a) there is a demand for trucks and SUVs; (b) they are good at it and have higher profit margins when the sell them; and (c) they are not good at making fuel-efficient cars. They also show every sign of being too bureaucratic to respond to market forces efficiently. This mandate will change none of that and just eliminate their profitable markets.
Fuel efficiency went down and oil consumption went up 10 years ago because of government mandated safety regulations like airbags that increased the weight of vehicles. Detroit just can’t flip a switch to make things more efficient. They will now need to invest a ton of money in R & D to comply with all of these new regulations in addition to the current regulations.
The upshot will be that the new regulations will get passed and in a year or two there will be a giant taxpayer funded bailout of the auto giants because they are too far behind Japan and Germany to catch up with the requisite technology to comply with all of these mandates. In 20 years our cars will be so heavily regulated and unprofitable that we will all be stuck driving cars that resemble Soviet-style Lada Samaras produced by a federal department of motor vehicles.
Platts and that crowd loves to talk about a big auto and big oil conspiracy against us simple folks, but the reality is that this is one of the most competitive businesses in the world. People are already voting for more fuel efficiency with their wallets, which is why Toyota is now #1. Detroit will either respond or get buried. Platts has decided the best course of action is to require them to dig their own graves now.
If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, do it by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Let us drill in ANWAR and on the continental shelf (before Cuba does it for us). Use more nuclear energy or coal to generate power.
I have no sympathy for Detroit, but a government mandate is not going to change anything Detroit does. They produce bigger vehicles instead of more fuel-efficient cars because (a) there is a demand for trucks and SUVs; (b) they are good at it and have higher profit margins when the sell them; and (c) they are not good at making fuel-efficient cars. They also show every sign of being too bureaucratic to respond to market forces efficiently. This mandate will change none of that and just eliminate their profitable markets.
Fuel efficiency went down and oil consumption went up 10 years ago because of government mandated safety regulations like airbags that increased the weight of vehicles. Detroit just can’t flip a switch to make things more efficient. They will now need to invest a ton of money in R & D to comply with all of these new regulations in addition to the current regulations.
The upshot will be that the new regulations will get passed and in a year or two there will be a giant taxpayer funded bailout of the auto giants because they are too far behind Japan and Germany to catch up with the requisite technology to comply with all of these mandates. In 20 years our cars will be so heavily regulated and unprofitable that we will all be stuck driving cars that resemble Soviet-style Lada Samaras produced by a federal department of motor vehicles.
Platts and that crowd loves to talk about a big auto and big oil conspiracy against us simple folks, but the reality is that this is one of the most competitive businesses in the world. People are already voting for more fuel efficiency with their wallets, which is why Toyota is now #1. Detroit will either respond or get buried. Platts has decided the best course of action is to require them to dig their own graves now.
The War on Drugs
Throwing people in jail for drug possession alone is a colossal waste of time and money - especially when it results in violent criminals being let out on the street early due to prison overcrowding.
The War on Drugs has been a colossal waste of time and money and has, in the long run, yielded no results. People are still doing drugs and people will always do drugs unless you monitor everyone 24 hours a day. The War on Drugs has often exacerbated the problem by driving up prices, leading to large profits which in turn leads to violence for control of the traffic.
However, seeing the ill effects of drugs, we as a society should never make them 100% legal. A great way to keep them on the “wrong” side of the divide between right and wrong without filling up our prisons is to impose steeper and steeper fines the higher you go up the scale (no pun intended). Small fines for possession of marijuana and big fines for possession of heroine.
We’ll never eliminate the problem, but perhaps instilling economic penalties rather than jail time will make the drug laws more effective and take away a lot of the negative unintended consequences that our current drug laws generate.
The War on Drugs has been a colossal waste of time and money and has, in the long run, yielded no results. People are still doing drugs and people will always do drugs unless you monitor everyone 24 hours a day. The War on Drugs has often exacerbated the problem by driving up prices, leading to large profits which in turn leads to violence for control of the traffic.
However, seeing the ill effects of drugs, we as a society should never make them 100% legal. A great way to keep them on the “wrong” side of the divide between right and wrong without filling up our prisons is to impose steeper and steeper fines the higher you go up the scale (no pun intended). Small fines for possession of marijuana and big fines for possession of heroine.
We’ll never eliminate the problem, but perhaps instilling economic penalties rather than jail time will make the drug laws more effective and take away a lot of the negative unintended consequences that our current drug laws generate.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Iraq
If We Pulled Out Of Iraq
A news site bloggers correct assessment of the situation on the ground and the inevitable future that Iraq faces no matter how long we remain.
Kurdistan will remain relatively peaceful though at constant odds with Turkey. The area will have to become a U.S. protectorate to avoid invasion by Turkey or Iran.
Shiite militias and Sunni militias will clash until the Shiites drive the Sunnis out of just about everywhere except western Iraq.
The Shiite areas will degenerate into a full blown civil war between rival factions. Iran will attempt to play friend to all sides until they are forced to choose - at which point whichever side they pick will have public sentiment turn against them. Iran will then be bogged down in an even bigger mess than we have now and may face a retaliatory invasion or a revolt among its general population if there is even a hint of sending Iranian soldiers into combat.
A democracy cannot spring forth from anything except a nation-state. Iraq is not a nation-state and never will be.
Time to start withdrawing and saving what little we can. Even if the surge is successful, it will merely be a cosmetic measure that will be swept away a week after we leave.
If the fear is that Iraq will become a base for Al-Quaeda operation against the U.S., fear not. Once we are gone, the recent converts to Al-Quaeda will drop that banner and take up sides with whichever local faction they favor in the Civil War to follow. The Al-Quaeda factions there are interested in getting American troops out of Iraq. Once we are gone, they will be too busy with their own civil war to plan attacks against us here. Most I suspect fit the profile of low-level street thug rather than international terrorist.
A news site bloggers correct assessment of the situation on the ground and the inevitable future that Iraq faces no matter how long we remain.
Kurdistan will remain relatively peaceful though at constant odds with Turkey. The area will have to become a U.S. protectorate to avoid invasion by Turkey or Iran.
Shiite militias and Sunni militias will clash until the Shiites drive the Sunnis out of just about everywhere except western Iraq.
The Shiite areas will degenerate into a full blown civil war between rival factions. Iran will attempt to play friend to all sides until they are forced to choose - at which point whichever side they pick will have public sentiment turn against them. Iran will then be bogged down in an even bigger mess than we have now and may face a retaliatory invasion or a revolt among its general population if there is even a hint of sending Iranian soldiers into combat.
A democracy cannot spring forth from anything except a nation-state. Iraq is not a nation-state and never will be.
Time to start withdrawing and saving what little we can. Even if the surge is successful, it will merely be a cosmetic measure that will be swept away a week after we leave.
If the fear is that Iraq will become a base for Al-Quaeda operation against the U.S., fear not. Once we are gone, the recent converts to Al-Quaeda will drop that banner and take up sides with whichever local faction they favor in the Civil War to follow. The Al-Quaeda factions there are interested in getting American troops out of Iraq. Once we are gone, they will be too busy with their own civil war to plan attacks against us here. Most I suspect fit the profile of low-level street thug rather than international terrorist.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Toll Roads - How not to do it
Rendell signs bill that will commit millions to highways, transit
So our wonderful state is once again doing things the wrong way. Not only are we borrowing against "future" revenue that does not exist and may never exist since it is dependent on Federal approval, we are now tolling the road in excess of its value to create revenue for completely unrelated areas.
The ideal way to make the interstates as efficient as possible using market forces is to sell them off for long-term leases to private, independent companies. Regulate it so that one company does not own more than one roadway per state to avoid monopolistic policies. Let them toll the roads without any other strings attached.
This will accomplish the following:
So our wonderful state is once again doing things the wrong way. Not only are we borrowing against "future" revenue that does not exist and may never exist since it is dependent on Federal approval, we are now tolling the road in excess of its value to create revenue for completely unrelated areas.
The ideal way to make the interstates as efficient as possible using market forces is to sell them off for long-term leases to private, independent companies. Regulate it so that one company does not own more than one roadway per state to avoid monopolistic policies. Let them toll the roads without any other strings attached.
This will accomplish the following:
- It will ensure that the use and maintenance of each road is only paid for by those who use it.
- It will permanently remove the care and maintenance from the state and federal budgets.
- It will reduce corruption and lax behavior from those that currently work with and through the government in the care and maintenance of these roads.
- The tolls will undoubtedly be lower than what the state would require if they ran it since the money will only go for the care and maintenance of the road.
- Inefficient behavior on the part of the road company will be instantly punished by the consumers as opposed to the current system where no one is answerable.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Gulf War I
After watching yet another documentary on the First Gulf War, I am utterly convinced that our direct involvement or at least the extent of it was a major mistake. Risking American lives and spending American money to protect one dictatorship from another is the worst example of American foreign policy. In the end, we got absolutely nothing from this and we are still, to this day, denounced and attacked by the regular citizens and many government officials from the countries we liberated.
The next time something like this occurs, we should do what has always made America great. We will limit ourselves to selling arms to the right side (the sovereign nation that was invaded) and let them do the heavy fighting and risk the heavy casualties. It's their war, not ours. Our involvement should be limited to whatever is needed to test the capabilities of our armed services. This type of real training with limited casualties is needed to keep our armed forces strong through experience while minimizing the risk of catastrophe, not to mention the cost. Our presence on the ground, however, should be at a minimum.
The other major problem in particular with the Middle East or any Muslim countries is that our involvement automatically makes Israel a part of the issue by implication. This is a classic example of what happens with entangling foreign alliances. Tying ourselves so strongly to the fate of one nation prevents us from being effective in other areas.
The next time something like this occurs, we should do what has always made America great. We will limit ourselves to selling arms to the right side (the sovereign nation that was invaded) and let them do the heavy fighting and risk the heavy casualties. It's their war, not ours. Our involvement should be limited to whatever is needed to test the capabilities of our armed services. This type of real training with limited casualties is needed to keep our armed forces strong through experience while minimizing the risk of catastrophe, not to mention the cost. Our presence on the ground, however, should be at a minimum.
The other major problem in particular with the Middle East or any Muslim countries is that our involvement automatically makes Israel a part of the issue by implication. This is a classic example of what happens with entangling foreign alliances. Tying ourselves so strongly to the fate of one nation prevents us from being effective in other areas.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Solar Power
Our state has now decided to "invest" heavily with our money in field that has no future - namely PV cells for producing solar power in PA.
My father works in a solar energy related field. I have looked into the cost and benefits of enabling my house for solar power. I would love to be able to use solar power for my house, but absent massive government subsidies, such an investment would not even come close to breaking even. It barely breaks even in places like California where you have government subsidies and an area that has a much higher solar energy rating. There isn’t a single square-inch of land in Pennsylvania that is above the middle range for PV solar radiation.
Government should never be involved in trying to jump-start businesses. Privately-owned banks and other means of raising venture capital exist so that people can borrow money to start-up businesses where they think they can earn a living and make some money. The market decides whether they succeed or fail.
Government should never be involved especially in jump-starting businesses that have no potential for survival without massive government subsidies, which is exactly want PA’s non-existent “solar energy industry” will need for decades to come. PV cells have more or less reached their limit as far as the potential to turn solar energy into electricity. Solar energy will only become viable in PA if a completely new technology comes along that makes it cost effective.
In the meantime, our state will have spent millions of our dollars to subsidize the production and purchase of PV cells that will never be cost-effective. In ten years they will be in our landfills as yet another monument to legislative smoke and mirrors. Most of these clowns got their start in government because the couldn’t handle a real job. Now they can’t resist manipulating a system that they never understood.
My father works in a solar energy related field. I have looked into the cost and benefits of enabling my house for solar power. I would love to be able to use solar power for my house, but absent massive government subsidies, such an investment would not even come close to breaking even. It barely breaks even in places like California where you have government subsidies and an area that has a much higher solar energy rating. There isn’t a single square-inch of land in Pennsylvania that is above the middle range for PV solar radiation.
Government should never be involved in trying to jump-start businesses. Privately-owned banks and other means of raising venture capital exist so that people can borrow money to start-up businesses where they think they can earn a living and make some money. The market decides whether they succeed or fail.
Government should never be involved especially in jump-starting businesses that have no potential for survival without massive government subsidies, which is exactly want PA’s non-existent “solar energy industry” will need for decades to come. PV cells have more or less reached their limit as far as the potential to turn solar energy into electricity. Solar energy will only become viable in PA if a completely new technology comes along that makes it cost effective.
In the meantime, our state will have spent millions of our dollars to subsidize the production and purchase of PV cells that will never be cost-effective. In ten years they will be in our landfills as yet another monument to legislative smoke and mirrors. Most of these clowns got their start in government because the couldn’t handle a real job. Now they can’t resist manipulating a system that they never understood.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Why I no longer will tow the party line
I love being shouted down by republicans who insist that those of us who believe in limited government should always vote republican no matter what because, supposedly, that is the only way to keep government small. Their argument is that even though the current republican leadership does not necessarily display these characteristics, it is better than the democrats. Also, we are told, politics is all about compromise, and we cannot always have it "our way."
My response is that when the GOP is in charge of both the executive and legislative branches of government, they spend money and expand government FASTER than the democrats. Witness the Ridge administration and the Bush Administration. For example, conservatives have called for the abolition of the Department of Education for years and the GOP promised they would carry that out when they got in. Under Bush it has blossomed in size and become more intrusive than it ever was under any Democratic president or Congress.
My response is that when the GOP is in charge of both the executive and legislative branches of government, they spend money and expand government FASTER than the democrats. Witness the Ridge administration and the Bush Administration. For example, conservatives have called for the abolition of the Department of Education for years and the GOP promised they would carry that out when they got in. Under Bush it has blossomed in size and become more intrusive than it ever was under any Democratic president or Congress.
Monday, July 9, 2007
It's back again...
It's back again. That sinking yet inescapable feeling that Hillary is destined to be our next president. Even people who hate her may vote for her so that have something to be angry about every day for the next decade. Vae victus!
Friday, July 6, 2007
Is Free Trade Really Free?
Query for the day:
From the Delian League to the Pax Americana, it seems that the largest advocate of free trade at any given time and place in history has also always had a large surface fleet. Is the large navy the result of having a large economy, is the large economy the result of using the large fleet, or does a fleet need to exist in order for truly free trade to exist?
From the Delian League to the Pax Americana, it seems that the largest advocate of free trade at any given time and place in history has also always had a large surface fleet. Is the large navy the result of having a large economy, is the large economy the result of using the large fleet, or does a fleet need to exist in order for truly free trade to exist?
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
The Deep Well
Most people treat government like a wishing well. Throw your cares in the well and government is a magic solution that will make it all better.
Just remember that once you throw a responsibility down the well, you're likely to never get control of it again.
Just remember that once you throw a responsibility down the well, you're likely to never get control of it again.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Minimum Wage
Effective yesterday, PA's minimum wage rose .90 cents to $7.15. The safety-net has now become a hammock.
I haven't had a minimum wage-type job in a long time, but I imagine that this is much more than just a safety-net type figure. What an artificial price increase does is eliminate the incentive to create new jobs in this area of the market and perhaps necessitate the elimination of jobs that are on the margin of profitability for employers.
The biggest expenses pinching people at the lower end of the pay scale are health care and school taxes. Two areas where government interference and lack of competition have artificially inflated costs above what the market would dictate.
I haven't had a minimum wage-type job in a long time, but I imagine that this is much more than just a safety-net type figure. What an artificial price increase does is eliminate the incentive to create new jobs in this area of the market and perhaps necessitate the elimination of jobs that are on the margin of profitability for employers.
The biggest expenses pinching people at the lower end of the pay scale are health care and school taxes. Two areas where government interference and lack of competition have artificially inflated costs above what the market would dictate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)