Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Monday, October 13, 2008

That is a good question

Andrew Malcolm blogging at the LA Times wants to know:
Does urging political restraint apply to McCain and Obama or just the Republicans?
That is a good question. Rather than posing this question to his readers who can do nothing about the press' behavior, I wonder if he has ever considered posing the question to his bosses at the LA Times.

via Glenn Reynolds

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Don't hold your breath

If the Press truly wanted to be fair and balanced, when it talks about the rage of the Republican party, it should note the rage of the Democratic Party that JammieWearingFool (via Instapundit) and Michelle Malkin do a very good job of documenting.

The press is unlikely to do that because it is biased, and because the McCain campaign is unlikely to push the story the way the Democrats did. If Republicans really want the press to be fair and balanced, they are going to have to demand that McCain push the story.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

News the media refuses to provide



via Youtube and Cupious Dissent

Obama's impressive team

Danny Shays quotes David Brooks as saying:
...although he found Obama to be "a very mediocre senator," he was is surrounded by what Brooks called "by far the most impressive people in the Democratic party." "He's phenomenally good at surrounding himself with a team," Brooks said. "I disagree with them on most issues, but I am given a lot of comfort by the fact that the people he's chosen are exactly the people I think most of us would want to choose if we were in his shoes. So again, I have doubts about him just because he was such a mediocre senator, but his capacity to pick staff is impressive."

Why would any conservative be impressed by this? As an analogy, if you wanted to, you could assemble the 2008 Olympic Redeem Team as your team, but you shouldn't expect to win the MLB World Series with that team. Similarly, why would David Brooks be impressed with Obama's ability to assemble a team that he feels is intellectual, but ideologically wrong on issue after issue? If his team was so impressive, shouldn't David Brooks feel that they are ideologically right on issue after issue? The two following possibilities exist:
  • Obama's team is ideologically right, and David Brooks lacks the intellectual insight to understand why his ideological thinking is flawed.
  • David Brooks is ideologically right, and Obama's team lacks the intellectual insight to understand why their ideological thinking is flawed.
If David Brooks is ideologically right, why is he impressed with the Obama's team inability to understand the flaws in their ideological thinking? I presume that David Brooks is convinced that he is ideologically right, so there is no point in asking the converse. Furthermore, why is David Brooks impressed rather than horrified by Obama's ability to assemble such an impressive staff? Isn't it logical to assume that Obama's impressive staff means that Obama is going to be spectacularly successful at advancing "flawed" ideological ideas and policies? Why would any conservative be comforted by that thought?

Until David Brooks can offer a coherent response to explain his fondness for the team Obama in spite of the ideological threat they pose, I am going to view David Brooks and not Sarah Palin as the "fatal cancer to the Republican party".

For the greater good of Republicanism

Steve Kornacki writes:
After eight years of George W. Bush, Republicans need to decide who they are and what they stand for. Nothing would jump-start that discussion more effectively than a drubbing next month.

That may be the case, but the biggest loser in such a scenario would be the American people as the Democratic party would have unchecked ability to radically alter America's capitalist system. I prefer preserving America's wealth and capitalist system to sacrificing it for the greater good of the Republican party.

The End of Prosperity

In an article at The American Spectator, Peter Ferrara quotes the authors of the book The End of Prosperity as saying:
[W]e are now witnessing nearly all of the economic policy dials that were once turned toward growth being twisted back towards recession. [O]ur politicians in both parties, but especially the liberal Democrats, are getting everything wrong -- tax policy, regulatory policy, monetary policy, spending policy, trade policy. We call this the assault on growth. The political class seems to be almost intentionally steering the United States economy into the abyss -- and, to borrow a phrase from P.J. O'Rourke, the American electorate, alas, seems ready and willing to hand them the keys and the bottle of whiskey to do it.

I hope every Republican politician reads at least this article and even maybe the book, and is able to adopt the arguments. If not, I fear Peter Ferrera's closing thoughts may prove to be prophetic:
We know how to create an economic boom, and we know what policies will lead to economic disaster. The Left denies these obvious truths only because it craves more government power. If America does not wake up to what is happening, there will be much suffering through a long dark night.

McCain and Economics

McCain did an awful job last night making his economic case. Republicans are offering people wealth. Democrats are threatening to take away people's wealth. How hard is it to make that argument. All Republicans and free market advocates need to find some one who can make that argument and can make it in a hurry. Shout it from every mountain top. The wealth of our nation is at risk like it has never been before. Why aren't Republicans and free market advocates engaged in self interested fight for economic survival?

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Look at your 401K plan

Megan McArdle thinks that you should not look at your 401K plan:

How to handle the crisis in your 401K. Don't look. Seriously, don't look.
I respectively disagree. I think you should look. When you look, ask yourself the following questions:
  • How did this happen?
  • What can be done to prevent your 401K from losing anymore value and help it regain value as quickly as possible?
  • What can be done to prevent it from happening in the future?

How did this happen? Ever since the last depression, the Democratic party has believed that interventions into the free market produce positive gains for society. The Republican party has believed that the Democratic party was wrong, but has not forcefully fought for its own political philosophy. The Republican party accepted political defeat and compromise rather than fighting for victory because they rationalized that society could bear the small costs that defeat and compromise entailed.

However, the crisis shows that both parties were wrong. Past minor interventions into the free market has produced a major cost and risk to the wealth of society and its citizens. Additionally, the government is currently limited in its ability to respond to this crisis because it allowed much of its wealth to be inefficiently spent by lavishly subsidizing non productive members of society.

What can be done to prevent your 401K from losing anymore value and help it regain value as quickly as possible? In the next election, vote for politicians who advocate a free market governing philosophy. Hope that they adhere to the governing philosophy of purging inefficient regulations and cutting taxes and spending.

What can be done to prevent it from happening in the future? Continue to support politicians and political parties that advocate a free market governing philosophy. Additionally, become immune to those who would use your compassion against you. Are these individuals showing compassion towards you by arguing that you should willingly forsake your own wealth for the benefit of those who in many cases do not need the assistance of the government?

Finally, Megan McArdle says

...selling into a massive liquidity crisis is a pretty bad idea. Selling in a panic because your assets just dropped 30% is almost certainly a bad idea.
That is only a good suggestion if the market has already hit the bottom, or is very near the bottom. I am not certain how close we are to the bottom, but I am convinced that if the Democrats gain more political control, and do not get religion on free markets, the market can almost certainly go lower.

Preventing the next depression

Hugh Hewitt makes the case that Obama is the Herbert Hoover of 2009. Republicans need to be making this case forcefully. It is America's last best chance to prevent the wide scale destruction of wealth that a Democratic control of all branches of government would cause.

If you have not read them, here are additional posts where I lay out the economic arguments that Republicans should be making:

http://ofinterest2.blogspot.com/2008/10/democratic-economic-incompetence.html
http://ofinterest2.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-bailout-politics.html
http://ofinterest2.blogspot.com/2008/09/death-of-capitalism.html
http://ofinterest2.blogspot.com/2008/09/americas-future.html
http://ofinterest2.blogspot.com/2008/09/financial-crisis-resolved.html

Friday, October 3, 2008

Post Bailout Politics

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line provides John Boehner statement on the bailout:

The passage of this flawed but necessary bill is not cause for celebration.

The financial crisis is not a failure of the free-market system. It is a failure of a broken Washington, and a government culture that allowed executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other firms to run amok, ultimately imperiling our nation’s economy. For years Republicans warned of this danger and advocated reform of these government-sponsored enterprises. And for years such reforms were thwarted by legislators with deep political ties to the worst offenders, putting the companies’ interests ahead of the interests of our country.

House Republicans stood on principle throughout this process. We secured numerous reforms on behalf of American taxpayers, such as raising the FDIC insurance cap, the SEC’s change to mark-to-market rules for certain assets that have worsened the credit crisis, and an insurance program that forces Wall Street to bear a financial burden in the rescue package. Republicans also were successful in stripping from the original Paulson-Democrat bailout plan of its special-interest earmarks for trial lawyers, labor bosses, and thinly-veiled political organizations like ACORN. This significantly improved legislation is much stronger than the initial Paulson plan and protects the interests of families, seniors, small businesses, and all taxpayers.


John Boehner is right. Hopefully, Republicans and conservatives will be able to unite behind this truth and get the American people to understand that the Republicans are working to create wealth, prosperity and security from terrorists while Democrats are working to create poverty, stagnation and uncertainty over America's ability to forcefully counter threats from terrorists.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Mike Huckabee was right

Many mainstream Republicans hated Mike Huckabee because they felt he was an anti-capitalist populist. However, there was a truthfulness to Mike Huckabee's populist rhetoric. Unfortunately, Mike Huckabee did not know how to make his rhetoric acceptable to the main stream free market advocates who dominate the Republican party.

Mike Huckabee's populism should be embraced, because it has a truthfulness to it, and it is also the most politically popular way to defend capitalism available.

Democrats, the Party of Greed

Ed Morrissey finds it shocking that some companies prefer the Democratic Party:
...one will be shocked to see Obama... leads in what Al Franken calls “Wall Street” money — Securities/Investments and Commercial Banks. In the former, Democrats enjoy almost a 2-1 advantage over Republicans.

It should not be shocking. Ed Morrissey and others who share his shock probably assume that companies want free markets. Companies do in principle want free markets, but even more than free markets, they want competitive advantages. The Democratic party creates competitve advantages for the Securities/Investments and Commercial Banks, and are rewarded with donations for doing so.

These competitive advantages result from laws that create market inefficiencies. These inefficiencies create short term fluctuations as the market attempts to return to equilibrium. These fluctuations provide ample profit opportunity for smart investors who understand the cause and effect relationship between the laws and the market inefficiencies.

Most investors are long term investors, and do not care about these short term fluctuations. Securities/Investments and Commercial Banks, on the other hand, do care. Furthermore, they have the resources available to identify and understand the cause and effect relationship of market distorting laws. This creates a competitive advantage which allows Securities/Investment and Commercial Banks to profit from long term investors' indifference to short term fluctuations in the market. Hence, they donate to the Democratic Party so that they will continue to write these profit creating market distorting laws.

Additionally, monopolistic corporations also tend to donate more money to the Democratic party than most people would expect. The behavior should not be surprising since monopolistic corporations also gain competitive advantages from market distorting laws.

Market distorting laws produce government endowed economies of scale. Economies of Scale mean that the larger the company is the more efficiently it can create its product. The way the government endows economies of scale is by taxing, subsidizing, and regulating companies.

To respond to these market interferences, companies must hire accountants, tax advisers, lawyers, and human resource personnel to be compliant with all applicable laws, taxes, and regulations. All of the above mentioned personnel are overhead and non productive employees (i.e., they are not engaged in producing the products or services that the companies' revenues are derived from). Hence, the cost of such employees has to be spread across the productive employees. The more employees the company has, the smaller this cost will be per employee. Hence, economies of scale result and all companies are given a competitive advantage if they can grow in size. Consequently, monopolistic corporations reward the Democratic party for taxing, subsidizing and regulating the American economy.