If you don’t like someone’s idea, be sure to call it an ‘agenda’.

March 4, 2013

No argument necessary. Forming an argument will not improve your chances of winning.

I caught this one on the twitter. It’s called, Gifquester: The Story of Sequestration in Handy GIF Form, and is brought to us courtesy of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union. It purports to be a cutesy little history on the sequestration, which is government’s pathetic attempt to shave a little acceleration from its spending increases. The good stuff—and by that I mean the empty-headed drivel that makes for fun blogging—begins two steps in:

Now, every so often Congress authorizes how much money the government can borrow. This is called the debt ceiling. Tea partiers claimed that the debt ceiling was too damn high.

But they were actually using the debt ceiling as leverage to advance their agenda of shrinking government services and cutting programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

After taking the U.S. economy to the brink of default, the right wing agreed … .

That’s the entire discussion on why the Tea Party wants to shrink government services. They, just, have this, agenda. That’s, just, what they do. That’s their thing. They shrink government. They’re government shrinkers. That’s their agenda. All you need to know about the economics of it is that the Tea Partiers have an agenda, and the good guys—the AFSCME—oppose that agenda.  Read the rest of this entry »


Links for Monday, June 20: China’s Economic Stimulus; Ludicrous RIAA Damages; What about NPR?; others…

April 17, 2011
  1. Stories about how China’s economy will soon surpass that of the U.S. should not be taken at face value. This is China’s economic stimulus project. This is what a government stimulus project is. A government stimulus project is when the government takes money and resources from the private sector and uses it to make and build things for which there is no genuine demand. Our American stimulus is of the same essential character. Ours is just a little more modest in scale.

  2. Here is a nice article from Niall Ferguson about the choice the American Government will make on our behalf in the near future: Raise taxes and/or cut government. Thomas E. Woods has argued that raising taxes will not solve the problem. There will have to be copious cutting.

  3. With juries like these, who needs dictators? Read the rest of this entry »


Links for June 14, 2010: Christopher Hitchens on disagreeing with the Left, Study alleges progressives are poor at basic economics, others….

June 13, 2010
  1. I would never make a political disagreement the cause of a quarrel with a friend. I think it’s silly to do that. But there is a tendency on the left—and I bet there are people here who know what I’m talking about—to think that if someone in any way disagrees with the left, it must be for the lowest possible reason, and that if you’ve found the lowest possible motive, you’ve found the right one. There’s this whole culture of: no one would leave us or quarrel with us if they weren’t a sellout. It’s actually a very sick mentality, and very widespread, and people who think like that or feel like that can dump me if they want, but that’s almost to as much as to say that they weren’t much of a friend.

    Yes, I know what he’s talking about. Speaking of sell-outs, Christopher Hitchens will be speaking to a sold-out crowd tomorrow, June 15, at the Free Library of Philadelphia.

  2. This study purports to find that self-identified progressives and liberals are less “economically enlightened” as compared to conservatives and Libertarians. I believe the result is essentially correct because every day I read articles from progressives who advocate feel-good policy proposals without examining economic consequences or responding adequately to economic concerns. I regularly comment on this very phenomenon here on this blog. Unfortunately, this study is so biased and flawed that it will not convince anybody.  The condescending title of this article alone will rightfully repel the very people who should receive the message most.  See a rebuttal here and a forum discussion here. Read the rest of this entry »


links for 2010-02-07

February 8, 2010
  1. Stop the Drug War (DRCNet) | Obama's Drug War Budget Destroys the Myth of Change

    Strong rebuke for the White House's 2010 drug war budget.

  2. Mises Economics Blog | "Who dat" owns the term "Super Bowl"? – Douglas French

    Commenting on the trademark infringement involving the term "Super Bowl".

  3. Mises Institute | Wage Earners and Employers – Ludwig von Mises

    More reason not to fear the Citizens United case: "It is a myth that there prevails a conflict between the interests of the corporations and firms and those of the people employed by them. In fact, good profits and high real wages go hand in hand." —Still, though, I'm hearing from many different sources that the court brought up the First Amendment issue "sua sponte". If this is true, as it is looking more likely to be, I would consider that to be 'judicial activism'. I will have to update my prior posts where I denied the claim…. Read the rest of this entry »


links for 2010-02-06

February 7, 2010
  1. TrueMajority.org | Aggressive Progressive: Fix the Budget, Fix America

    I agree here with Drew Hudson that we should cut the defense budget, as we should cut the budget everywhere else. By "restarting the economy", I hope he means returning that money to the American taxpayers.

  2. Link TV | Dean's Beans Blog: Lords of the Ring: Who Determines the Price of Coffee?

    If nobody is willing to pay the farmers their production costs, then what does that say about the market's need for coffee? What will happen—what should happen—is that is that farmers will and should give up making coffee and find something else to do to provide for themselves. It's not easy to say to a large swath of South Americans: "Well, look, your coffee culture is obsolete. International traders are no longer willing to pay for what you do." But if that's the reality, then so be it. Part of the equation is: who is selling coffee at below the cost of production, and why? If big international coffee corporations are making a killing selling coffee, and if they actually want to survive, then they will do well not to bankrupt their suppliers. They should consider offering the farmers enough for the crop so that the farmers can keep their businesses going. The farmers should consider another line of work if nobody is willing to offer them enough to keep their business going. Read the rest of this entry »


links for 2010-02-04

February 5, 2010
  1. Huffington Post | Mark Green: Why Citizen’s United Is a Fraud: A Guide for Non-Lawyers

    I commented earlier that the parties must have wanted to talk about the First Amendment because it played such a prominent role in the oral arguments. Here it is clarified that this was not an issue in lower courts and it was not an issue during an earlier trip to the Supreme Court. So it looks like I need to go back a little further to research the origins.

  2. PBS | Bill Moyers Journal: Monica Youn and Zephyr Teachout

    The errors of thought: 1) Corporations all speak with the same voice. 2) They speak in opposition to “the people”. It just might be the case that some corporations may agree with some of “the people” on some of the issues. If you save money at Wal-mart, or if you buy a Ford automobile that enriches your life, then, in at least one sense, your interests are in line with those of the corporations. You will cheer for those corporations when they spend gobs of money to speak in your interest in opposition to other corporations who disagree. As to the judicial over-reaching, Youn and Teachout claim that the parties stipulated that this case would not be about a narrow issue and not the First Amendment. For what it’s worth, the oral argument available at SCOTUSWiki speaks of nothing but the First Amendment for at least the first ten pages of its transcript (all I’ve listened to so far: http://is.gd/7F0Kw). Somebody other than the justices was interested in discussing the issue.

    Update: I’m interested in reviewing the “activism” question. See the above link for more info. I need to review the case thoroughly and come to my own conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 428 other followers