I just read a fantastic book called "Uncle Tungsten" by Dr. Oliver Sacks, neurologist. It is a memoir about growing up in England during the war years and after, surrounded by chemistry and a family filled with doctors and chemists all intensely interested in this subject. His love for learning and his hands on adventures with chemistry as he was growing up makes his life so fascinating and interesting. But here is what he writes about how he felt and viewed America from afar. We should not forget that we do live in a most wonderful country in the world. Let's not forget it as politicians try to destroy what our ancestors have tried to create.
"...I thought that I, too, would like to have a life like him, to live in magical, mythical California (already, with cowboy films, a land of fantasy for me). America was increasingly in my thought as I entered my teens - it had been our great ally in the war; its power, its resources, were almost unlimited. Had it not made the world's first atomic bomb? American soldiers on leave walked the streets of London-their gestures, their speech, seeming to emit a self-confidence, a nonchalance, an ease almost unimaginable to us after six years of war. Life Magazine, in its large spreads, pictured mountains, canyons, deserts, landscapes of a spaciousness and magnificence beyond anything in Europe, along with American towns full of smiling, eager, well-nourished people, their houses gleaming, their shops full, enjoying a life of plenty and gaiety unimaginable to us, with the tight rationing, the pinched consciousness of the war years still upon us. To this glamorous picture of transatlantic ease, and bigger-than-life spontaneity and splendor, musicals like Annie get Your Gun and Oklamhoma! added a further mythopoeic force. It was in this atmosphere of romantic enlargement that Cannary Row and (despite its sickliness) its sequel, Sweet Thursday, had such an impact on me."
"If I had ...sometimes imagined a mythical past, I now started to have fantasies of the future, to imagine myself as a scientist or naturalist on the coasts or in the great outback of America. I read accounts of Lewis and clark's journey, I read Emerson and Thoreau, and above all, I read John Muir. I fell in love with the sublime and romantic landscapes of Albert Bierstadt and the beautiful, sensous photographs of Ansel Adams ..."
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Is Obama's Goal to Bring Down America? It's not as Farfetched as You Think
People are getting tired of Obama and his policies that don't make sense. Or do they? Glen Beck is putting forth the idea that what Obama is trying to do as he tries to make a one world government is to make America poor so that we are like most of the rest of the world. Don't dismiss this out of hand. I would think and research about this. There's no other way his policies and what he's done since in office make sense. Apparently he is paying 2 billion dollars to Brazil to find oil in their deep waters and another huge wad of cash to Mexico to find oil in the gulf. Why is he doing this while he prohibits drilling here in America? Think of all the leftist powerlusters surrounding Obama who have much to gain if America's rough and tumble free-market capitalism is brought down. Listen to this woman as she proclaims her exhaustion of waiting for Obama to fix the economy.
"I'm one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for," a woman told President Obama at a town hall.
"My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives, but, quite frankly, it's starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we're headed again, and, quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly. Is this my new reality?," she added. Listen to her confront Obama here.
"I'm one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for," a woman told President Obama at a town hall.
"My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives, but, quite frankly, it's starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we're headed again, and, quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly. Is this my new reality?," she added. Listen to her confront Obama here.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Tea Party Spreads to Other Countries - Are the People Getting Fed Up with Powerlusting Politicians?
"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be—to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all—the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government."Thomas Jefferson
Even the Aussies are getting into the limited government mode. Here is an article in AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AFFAIRS. Is the desire for freedom FROM government spreading around the globe? Will it last? Time will tell.
TEA PARTY COMES TO AUSTRALIA
..."What should be the role of the government in the economy, what should be the role of government in people’s lives and do you believe that you can spend your money better than government?"
The T.E.A. Party in Australia announces on its website that it is a "worldwide movement united for free markets, fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited small governments and individual freedom".
The modern US Tea Party movement draws inspiration from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, which was a protest by American colonists against British taxes and emerged in the United States in 2009. READ HERE.
Even the Aussies are getting into the limited government mode. Here is an article in AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AFFAIRS. Is the desire for freedom FROM government spreading around the globe? Will it last? Time will tell.
TEA PARTY COMES TO AUSTRALIA
..."What should be the role of the government in the economy, what should be the role of government in people’s lives and do you believe that you can spend your money better than government?"
The T.E.A. Party in Australia announces on its website that it is a "worldwide movement united for free markets, fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited small governments and individual freedom".
The modern US Tea Party movement draws inspiration from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, which was a protest by American colonists against British taxes and emerged in the United States in 2009. READ HERE.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Punishing the Private Sector For The Sins of The Federal Government
We have been killing free enterprise, individualism and the American can-do spirit for over 8 decades. But it hasn't always been this way. From 1850 to 1930 the US went from a second rate economy to a leader in the world in crucial industries from chemicals to car manufacturing. Famous industrialists like Ford, Durant, Crapo, Astor and Kellogg built huge businesses and in the process raised the standard of living for all Americans. And they did it without government help or intervention. These men did it with their ingenuity and the freedom which abounded during those years. Then the government stepped in with their controls and prohibitions shackling the men that would have continued in the entrepreneur tradition. And it hasn't changed ever since.
Americans today can't even realize how they are shackled and managed and sermoned to by government bureaucrats. Now for several generations we have been led with rings in our noses to toe the government line and without a whimper we oblige. Are we turning into cows? A wonderful book written by Burton Fulsom, Jr called "EMPIRE BUILDERS" is well worth your while. You will see that once Americans were builders and creators of empires during a short interlude of 8o years when the government was kept at bay.
The following is an article in Investor's Business Daily describing how low we have fallen as we ever continue to allow these politicians to tie us up and strangle us with regulations, taxes and prohibitions. We are no longer the spirited American of yore, we are humble servants led by the nose by government hacks and politicians. It's time to find some spirit and energy and put government back in it's place - which is the job of ensuring the defense of this country against our enemies and criminals but to otherwise "leave us alone"!
Poverty: A new report comes as a punch in the gut for proud Americans: One in seven of us is poor, government data show. Surprised? Don't be. It's what happens when you kill the most productive parts of a country.
An estimated 14.3% of the population, or 43.6 million people, were considered poor in 2009 up from 13.2% the year before, the Census Bureau reports. This is the highest share living in poverty since the government began keeping records half a century ago.
How can this be in the richest nation on Earth?
Since Democrats took power — Congress in 2007, the White House in 2009 — policies that punish the productive private economy have become the norm.
Meanwhile, government wastes massive sums bailing out failed businesses, purchasing bad loans and rewarding those who borrow too much, make bad economic decisions or belong to unions.
Knowing this, no one should express shock that 15 million Americans don't have jobs, and that perhaps another 14 million or so are working only part time when they'd prefer to be working full time.
Persistent unemployment from misbegotten government policies is why we have this poverty. And it leads, inevitably, to dependence on government. As recently as 2006, federal payments to individuals as a share of GDP — a proxy for welfare — stood at 12%. Now it's 16.4%, a 37% rise in three years and the highest level ever.
Our own IBD/TIPP Poll of 908 Americans across the country, taken last week, shows that 39% of all American households and 22% of all individuals today receive some kind of federal aid.
Why? For three years now, the private sector has been systematically punished for the sins of the federal government with higher taxes and greater regulation. Businesses, though sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash, won't invest in such an environment.
Washington's response? Spend hundreds of billions more on ill-considered "stimulus" plans and consign millions more to unemployment and poverty.
In the past two years we've witnessed a breathtaking expansion of federal government. And it'll only get worse, with a planned $44.8 trillion in spending over the next decade, an 83% rise. This new spending will add $13 trillion to our debt, pushing the total to $23 trillion by 2020 from just $7.5 trillion as recently as 2008.
Contrary to the repeated assertions of our nation's Keynesian elites in the media, Washington and academia, all this spending and debt doesn't create jobs. It kills them. The money siphoned from the economy destroys investment and consumer spending, leading to slower growth, higher joblessness and lower incomes... READ the rest here at IBD.
Americans today can't even realize how they are shackled and managed and sermoned to by government bureaucrats. Now for several generations we have been led with rings in our noses to toe the government line and without a whimper we oblige. Are we turning into cows? A wonderful book written by Burton Fulsom, Jr called "EMPIRE BUILDERS" is well worth your while. You will see that once Americans were builders and creators of empires during a short interlude of 8o years when the government was kept at bay.
The following is an article in Investor's Business Daily describing how low we have fallen as we ever continue to allow these politicians to tie us up and strangle us with regulations, taxes and prohibitions. We are no longer the spirited American of yore, we are humble servants led by the nose by government hacks and politicians. It's time to find some spirit and energy and put government back in it's place - which is the job of ensuring the defense of this country against our enemies and criminals but to otherwise "leave us alone"!
Poverty: A new report comes as a punch in the gut for proud Americans: One in seven of us is poor, government data show. Surprised? Don't be. It's what happens when you kill the most productive parts of a country.
An estimated 14.3% of the population, or 43.6 million people, were considered poor in 2009 up from 13.2% the year before, the Census Bureau reports. This is the highest share living in poverty since the government began keeping records half a century ago.
How can this be in the richest nation on Earth?
Since Democrats took power — Congress in 2007, the White House in 2009 — policies that punish the productive private economy have become the norm.
Meanwhile, government wastes massive sums bailing out failed businesses, purchasing bad loans and rewarding those who borrow too much, make bad economic decisions or belong to unions.
Knowing this, no one should express shock that 15 million Americans don't have jobs, and that perhaps another 14 million or so are working only part time when they'd prefer to be working full time.
Persistent unemployment from misbegotten government policies is why we have this poverty. And it leads, inevitably, to dependence on government. As recently as 2006, federal payments to individuals as a share of GDP — a proxy for welfare — stood at 12%. Now it's 16.4%, a 37% rise in three years and the highest level ever.
Our own IBD/TIPP Poll of 908 Americans across the country, taken last week, shows that 39% of all American households and 22% of all individuals today receive some kind of federal aid.
Why? For three years now, the private sector has been systematically punished for the sins of the federal government with higher taxes and greater regulation. Businesses, though sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash, won't invest in such an environment.
Washington's response? Spend hundreds of billions more on ill-considered "stimulus" plans and consign millions more to unemployment and poverty.
In the past two years we've witnessed a breathtaking expansion of federal government. And it'll only get worse, with a planned $44.8 trillion in spending over the next decade, an 83% rise. This new spending will add $13 trillion to our debt, pushing the total to $23 trillion by 2020 from just $7.5 trillion as recently as 2008.
Contrary to the repeated assertions of our nation's Keynesian elites in the media, Washington and academia, all this spending and debt doesn't create jobs. It kills them. The money siphoned from the economy destroys investment and consumer spending, leading to slower growth, higher joblessness and lower incomes... READ the rest here at IBD.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
We Want Government Shrinkage - Enough is Enough!
An interesting article by Daniel Henninger at The Wall Street Journal.
...In a note on last week's poll, Rasmussen points out that the only time it recorded a higher shrink-the-government number, at 70%, was in August 2006. That was just ahead of the famous off-year election in which Republican voters withheld support for their party's free-spending members in Congress.
The Obama White House holds that the spending concerns Mr. Obama cited Monday—the stimulus, TARP, the auto bailout—were necessary. Whatever any individual merit in this stuff, it hit most voters at a moment when nearly any big government outlays were going to be written off as "more spending." When Mr. Obama said the health bill was "paid for," naturally polls showed that no one believed him. Why should they?
This loss of faith predates the Obama presidency.
I called Scott Rasmussen this week to discuss the roots of the anti-spending mood, and he suggested that the American electorate's desire for pushback against the growth in federal spending dates at least to 1992 and Ross Perot's third-party presidential bid, which drew 18.9% of the popular vote. Indeed, Mr. Rasmussen argues, you can find evidence of the turn in Jimmy Carter's "efficiency in government" efforts.
Until Barack Obama, the only Democrats who had a chance of winning the presidency were Southern governors with a reputation for fiscal moderation. But after Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992, he immediately tried to pass the mammoth health-care entitlement known as HillaryCare. After 17 acrimonious months, it died in August 1994. That November, voters gave control of the House to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. It was about more than Newt Gingrich's charm....READ Here: "It's The Spending, Stupid" at WSJ
...In a note on last week's poll, Rasmussen points out that the only time it recorded a higher shrink-the-government number, at 70%, was in August 2006. That was just ahead of the famous off-year election in which Republican voters withheld support for their party's free-spending members in Congress.
The Obama White House holds that the spending concerns Mr. Obama cited Monday—the stimulus, TARP, the auto bailout—were necessary. Whatever any individual merit in this stuff, it hit most voters at a moment when nearly any big government outlays were going to be written off as "more spending." When Mr. Obama said the health bill was "paid for," naturally polls showed that no one believed him. Why should they?
This loss of faith predates the Obama presidency.
I called Scott Rasmussen this week to discuss the roots of the anti-spending mood, and he suggested that the American electorate's desire for pushback against the growth in federal spending dates at least to 1992 and Ross Perot's third-party presidential bid, which drew 18.9% of the popular vote. Indeed, Mr. Rasmussen argues, you can find evidence of the turn in Jimmy Carter's "efficiency in government" efforts.
Until Barack Obama, the only Democrats who had a chance of winning the presidency were Southern governors with a reputation for fiscal moderation. But after Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992, he immediately tried to pass the mammoth health-care entitlement known as HillaryCare. After 17 acrimonious months, it died in August 1994. That November, voters gave control of the House to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. It was about more than Newt Gingrich's charm....READ Here: "It's The Spending, Stupid" at WSJ
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Reality Will Continue to Punish Americans Until They Realize that We have to Clean Up Washington
- Economic growth is not driven by soaring government spending, deficits and debt. It is driven by incentives to work, save, invest, start businesses, expand businesses, create jobs, and take on the risks of entrepreneurship. Keynesian economics does not work because borrowing or taxing another $50 billion out of the private economy to spend another $50 billion into the economy does not add anything to the economy on net. Nor does it do anything to change the fundamental incentives that do drive the economy, except maybe make them worse. The American Spectator (2010/09/08).
Just as Japan suffered under the illusion back in the 90's that it could "stimulate" the economy by doing the Keynesian thing, i.e. government spending, deficits and debt with a focus on big spending on infrastructure we are repeating the same mistakes. But with the example of Japan one has to ask why is Obama and his minions doing the same thing that dumped Japan into two decades of stagnation? There is only one answer: Washington bureaucrats want control of our lives and they are doing this by making us poor and dependent on Washington handouts. Is this what we want? To live a life of kow-towing to bureaucrats? I don't think Americans have yet lost the can-do, leave me alone spirit that tamed and settled this vast country we patriots like to call America the beautiful. To understand the mindset of the bureaucrat hack read the article 'AMERICA'S RULING CLASS" by Angelo M. Codevilla in the July-August 2010 issue of The American Spectator.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Thinking for Oneself and Bearing the Consequences
My brother had an interesting assessment of Obama and the probability of his understanding that maybe it's time for him to stand up and be counted as one who supports the ideals of America as espoused by our founding fathers. No, Americans do not like whole swaths of other Americans living off the dole. No, Americans do not like our President to be wishy washy about the ideals and freedoms that the rest of us so cherish. And yes, we want our leader to be firm and determined to destroy without hesitation the fanatics and lunatics who want to kill us. And that is precisely Obama's problem. He has shown us that he is NOT interested in defending our interests and he is ambivalent about the nobleness of the American ideals: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Here is a letter he wrote to me a couple of days ago.
There was one interesting statement at the end of an Op Ed in the Sunday NY Times (Week in Review section), by Sam Tanenhaus: “God and Politics, Together Again” (he is a liberal I believe). He said that Obama was connected through his Ivy League background to the super-privileged and by his “community organizing” to the poor, but he has no idea of the lives of the vast middle class.
I think that Obama, like most people, takes Altruism as a given (as he says “we are our brothers keeper”) and he takes it seriously, and because of his disconnect from working Americans has no idea that a modern industrial economy is fueled on production not pity, and production is fueled on the self-interest of individuals – people who work and earn their keep. Altruism gives him the permission to run everybody else’s life and distribute the fruits of their labor.
Well the economy is wrecked and he had a large hand in it, and now we’ll see if he’s got any brains at all in the next two years…if he continues his suicidal course or not. Men will not make the effort to plan and work if some third party can come along and dispose of their hard earned wealth down an endless drain to serve the so-called “underprivileged”.
The problem is he was raised in that liberal, Keynesian environment which he takes as gospel. If he has brains then maybe what he needs is courage. It would take courage, especially for a black man brought up in the liberal establishment, to renounce the liberal agenda and espouse some rational economic ideas. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but it is my understanding that Keynesianism is pretty discredited these days.
I think it’s too much to hope that he’ll surprise us - people don’t change easily – or rather it takes courage to think for oneself and bear the consequences. Richard Winkler
There was one interesting statement at the end of an Op Ed in the Sunday NY Times (Week in Review section), by Sam Tanenhaus: “God and Politics, Together Again” (he is a liberal I believe). He said that Obama was connected through his Ivy League background to the super-privileged and by his “community organizing” to the poor, but he has no idea of the lives of the vast middle class.
I think that Obama, like most people, takes Altruism as a given (as he says “we are our brothers keeper”) and he takes it seriously, and because of his disconnect from working Americans has no idea that a modern industrial economy is fueled on production not pity, and production is fueled on the self-interest of individuals – people who work and earn their keep. Altruism gives him the permission to run everybody else’s life and distribute the fruits of their labor.
Well the economy is wrecked and he had a large hand in it, and now we’ll see if he’s got any brains at all in the next two years…if he continues his suicidal course or not. Men will not make the effort to plan and work if some third party can come along and dispose of their hard earned wealth down an endless drain to serve the so-called “underprivileged”.
The problem is he was raised in that liberal, Keynesian environment which he takes as gospel. If he has brains then maybe what he needs is courage. It would take courage, especially for a black man brought up in the liberal establishment, to renounce the liberal agenda and espouse some rational economic ideas. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but it is my understanding that Keynesianism is pretty discredited these days.
I think it’s too much to hope that he’ll surprise us - people don’t change easily – or rather it takes courage to think for oneself and bear the consequences. Richard Winkler
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
"Parroting a Load of Poppycock From Van Jones"
Funny this article should have been written. I have been wondering for over a year how the fawning media can call this man so intelligent. He seems to have no idea what he is doing. Either that or there's something more nefarious - like he knows exactly what he's doing and his goal is to ruin America. Here is a very good article by Mr. Howard expressing everything I've felt but much more eloquently. This is part of the article which can be read at IBD.
...Sharp presidents do not dive into lose/lose situations with such gusto.
How is Obama's foreign policy working out? The U.S. needs strong allies to defeat monstrous enemies. Dissing the British, scolding Israel, canceling the missile shield in Eastern Europe and groveling to foreign royalty do not bode well. Our enemies, from Iran to Venezuela, smell weakness and timidity. Ignoring cold reality and dreaming that personal charisma is the solution to international tensions is probably on the daft side of the intelligence continuum.
The "4 million green jobs" mantra espoused by the president is a canard when examined closely. Renewable energy technology exists only due to huge government subsidies. Ethanol is inefficient, raising the prices of gasoline and corn. Wind farms produce intermittent power that flummoxes the grid and requires conventional power plants to run continuously as backup. The net carbon reduction is miniscule.
Both schemes are massive misallocations of resources better used elsewhere. An astute president would inform himself on both sides of the issue rather than blatantly parrot a load of poppycock from the Van Jones crowd.
A Republican president who parties far more than he works would be trashed by every media outlet in the land. But Obama is a Democrat who enjoys the media's deep support. He escapes any serious questions about his busy golf schedule, multiple vacations, endless fundraising and campaigning, constant banquets and concerts in the White House, and his obvious detachment from the people he supposedly leads.
He appears more of a dilettante than a leader. A smart fellow would move to de-emphasize his privileged lifestyle instead of flaunting it in front of a nation mired in a recession.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe Obama is smart. Then again, Jimmy Carter was intelligent but proved to be the worst president of our lifetimes — up to now.
READ the complete essay here: "How Brilliant Can President Obama Be?" by Jeffrey S. Howard at Investor's Business Daily.
...Sharp presidents do not dive into lose/lose situations with such gusto.
How is Obama's foreign policy working out? The U.S. needs strong allies to defeat monstrous enemies. Dissing the British, scolding Israel, canceling the missile shield in Eastern Europe and groveling to foreign royalty do not bode well. Our enemies, from Iran to Venezuela, smell weakness and timidity. Ignoring cold reality and dreaming that personal charisma is the solution to international tensions is probably on the daft side of the intelligence continuum.
The "4 million green jobs" mantra espoused by the president is a canard when examined closely. Renewable energy technology exists only due to huge government subsidies. Ethanol is inefficient, raising the prices of gasoline and corn. Wind farms produce intermittent power that flummoxes the grid and requires conventional power plants to run continuously as backup. The net carbon reduction is miniscule.
Both schemes are massive misallocations of resources better used elsewhere. An astute president would inform himself on both sides of the issue rather than blatantly parrot a load of poppycock from the Van Jones crowd.
A Republican president who parties far more than he works would be trashed by every media outlet in the land. But Obama is a Democrat who enjoys the media's deep support. He escapes any serious questions about his busy golf schedule, multiple vacations, endless fundraising and campaigning, constant banquets and concerts in the White House, and his obvious detachment from the people he supposedly leads.
He appears more of a dilettante than a leader. A smart fellow would move to de-emphasize his privileged lifestyle instead of flaunting it in front of a nation mired in a recession.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe Obama is smart. Then again, Jimmy Carter was intelligent but proved to be the worst president of our lifetimes — up to now.
READ the complete essay here: "How Brilliant Can President Obama Be?" by Jeffrey S. Howard at Investor's Business Daily.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
"Will We Become Zimbabwe or Will We Be Japan? by Merle Hazard
This guy is a financial advisor and gives us some comic relief from these depressing, government induced troubled times.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Listen to Bill whittle's Impassioned Speech on Why We Must Not Be Cowards Before Islamic Terrorism
Are you bewildered and sick of mealy mouthed politicians who won't stand up and do what's necessary to defend America and the ideas we stand for? Have you been wondering how a New York Mayor can defend the building of a hugh mosque in the middle of 9/11 New York? Are you perplexed why we stand idly by as Iran build nukes? Who does Washington think these nukes are intended for? America wake up before World war II will look like a walk in the park. Listen to Bill here.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=4031
A Tyranny Excercised for the Good of its Victims
Think "the Left" as you read this quote by C.S. Lewis.
"A tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will, torment us without end, for they do so for the approval of their own conscience."
C. S. Lewis
"A tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will, torment us without end, for they do so for the approval of their own conscience."
C. S. Lewis
Friday, September 03, 2010
We Lose Money Every Time Congress is in Session: Let's Tell Them to Go Home and Stay Home!
If you're over 35 years old you probably know this fact: that when the politicians hightail it out of Washington for one of their recesses the markets do well. When they're in Washington taxing and legislating the markets do poorly. Read the article below.
With Congress out of session for its August recess, one innovative fund manager is busy making money for clients who share his view that an inactive government is good for the stock market. Armed with data and a successful track record, Eric Singer is using his unique strategy to make profits and a point about avoiding the most dangerous element in any investment decision: political risk.
Singer’s Congressional Effect Fund takes its name from the phenomenon he helped prove: when Congress acts, markets suffer. In 1992 while working for a New York investment firm, Singer noticed a recurring pattern of exceptional stock performance. The “January effect,” was followed by stock market “rallies” during the summer, at Thanksgiving and Christmas. It occurred to him that in each boom period Congress was out of session.
So, he looked at the data to see if there was a correlation. Going back to January 1, 1965, Singer studied the performance of the S&P 500 Index on days when at least one house of Congress was in session compared to when neither house met for business. The results confirmed his intuition. On days when at least one house was in session, the S&P 500 had an average annualized price gain of +.94%. Alternatively, the Index gained +16.04% when neither house was in session.
The explanation is simple. Investors fear government action because it always involves change. Changes in rules and regulations cause uncertainty. That uncertainty leads to risk-averse behavior like banks reducing lending, landowners refusing to develop real estate and employers refusing to hire more staff. By driving wealth creators to the sidelines, government action makes the nation poorer.
Though intuitive to most business owners, the “congressional effect” is hardly conventional wisdom with financiers or academics. When Singer first published his findings a team of experts tried to disprove him.
They ended up making an even stronger case for Singer’s position.
In a 1997 study titled, “The Congressional Calendar and Stock Market Performance,” three university professors and a private financier concluded:
“Almost the entire advance in the market since 1897 corresponds to the periods when Congress is in recess. This is an impressive result, given that Congress is in recess about half as long as in session. Furthermore, average daily returns when Congress is not meeting are almost eight times greater than when Congress is in session. Throughout the year, cumulative returns during recess are thirteen times that experienced while Congress is in session.” ...READ "Investment Funds Show that Betting Against Congress is a Great way to Make Money" at Center for Individual Freedom.
With Congress out of session for its August recess, one innovative fund manager is busy making money for clients who share his view that an inactive government is good for the stock market. Armed with data and a successful track record, Eric Singer is using his unique strategy to make profits and a point about avoiding the most dangerous element in any investment decision: political risk.
Singer’s Congressional Effect Fund takes its name from the phenomenon he helped prove: when Congress acts, markets suffer. In 1992 while working for a New York investment firm, Singer noticed a recurring pattern of exceptional stock performance. The “January effect,” was followed by stock market “rallies” during the summer, at Thanksgiving and Christmas. It occurred to him that in each boom period Congress was out of session.
So, he looked at the data to see if there was a correlation. Going back to January 1, 1965, Singer studied the performance of the S&P 500 Index on days when at least one house of Congress was in session compared to when neither house met for business. The results confirmed his intuition. On days when at least one house was in session, the S&P 500 had an average annualized price gain of +.94%. Alternatively, the Index gained +16.04% when neither house was in session.
The explanation is simple. Investors fear government action because it always involves change. Changes in rules and regulations cause uncertainty. That uncertainty leads to risk-averse behavior like banks reducing lending, landowners refusing to develop real estate and employers refusing to hire more staff. By driving wealth creators to the sidelines, government action makes the nation poorer.
Though intuitive to most business owners, the “congressional effect” is hardly conventional wisdom with financiers or academics. When Singer first published his findings a team of experts tried to disprove him.
They ended up making an even stronger case for Singer’s position.
In a 1997 study titled, “The Congressional Calendar and Stock Market Performance,” three university professors and a private financier concluded:
“Almost the entire advance in the market since 1897 corresponds to the periods when Congress is in recess. This is an impressive result, given that Congress is in recess about half as long as in session. Furthermore, average daily returns when Congress is not meeting are almost eight times greater than when Congress is in session. Throughout the year, cumulative returns during recess are thirteen times that experienced while Congress is in session.” ...READ "Investment Funds Show that Betting Against Congress is a Great way to Make Money" at Center for Individual Freedom.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Doctors Are Starting to Speak Out Against Obamacare - Hurray!
Perhaps there is hope afterall of getting America back to being America which means getting back our "life, liberty and happiness" which we have lost ever since Obama got into office.
Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don't like ObamaCare, so we'll fix it.
This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it—but not to repeal it. As a doctor I know something about unexpected recoveries, and this latest attempt to rescue ObamaCare from repeal needs to be taken seriously.
For Democrats who voted for ObamaCare, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next Congress.
To counter this election-year ruse, my colleagues and I at Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Our patients have always expected a certain standard of care from their doctors, which includes providing them with pertinent information that may affect their quality of life. Because the issue this election is so stark—literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead—we are this week posting a "Dear Patient" letter in our waiting rooms.
"Dear Patient: Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world."... Read Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare WSJ.
Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don't like ObamaCare, so we'll fix it.
This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it—but not to repeal it. As a doctor I know something about unexpected recoveries, and this latest attempt to rescue ObamaCare from repeal needs to be taken seriously.
For Democrats who voted for ObamaCare, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next Congress.
To counter this election-year ruse, my colleagues and I at Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Our patients have always expected a certain standard of care from their doctors, which includes providing them with pertinent information that may affect their quality of life. Because the issue this election is so stark—literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead—we are this week posting a "Dear Patient" letter in our waiting rooms.
"Dear Patient: Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world."... Read Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare WSJ.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Desperately Seeking Obama to Stand Up for the Iranian Green Movement
Looks like Iran which is led by a bunch of loonies is cracking up. The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece describing how this nation, led by a bunch of Cuckoos may be falling apart. Khamenei who is NOT much beloved by his people, and the always incoherent Ahmadinejad are doing a fine job of destroying this country and convincing the people of the Green movement that it's time for them to go. Where is Obama? He has not reported for duty.
…That opposition is fed by enduring social and economic crises. Unemployment last month reached 15% and is as high as 45% in some regions. In Tehran, health officials warned pregnant women and mothers of young children not to drink the water. Electrical failures are widespread. Taxi drivers have been striking around the country this summer, some because of the long lines at gas stations and others because of a shortage of compressed natural gas. The sanctions seem to be having an effect.
As these pressures have mounted, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—against whom Iranians chant "Death to the Dictator!" at public gatherings and nightly from their rooftops—has sought to reaffirm his authority. Late last month he issued a fatwa declaring that his opinions had a status equal to those of the prophet Mohammed. The fatwa caused such consternation that it was removed from his website, then quietly returned a few days later.
…President Ahmadinejad has also tried to buttress his popular support, first by claiming that "stupid Zionists" were trying to kill him, and then by putting out a story—which few in Iran took seriously—of an assassination attempt on his motorcade. As usual, the "report" went through various iterations: first it was a grenade, then a firecracker, then nothing at all.
…These various debacles have strengthened the Green Movement, and opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi continue to launch serious verbal attacks on the regime. When the head of the powerful Guardian Council recently accused the Greens of receiving money from the Saudis and the Americans, Mr. Karroubi gave him the back of his hand: "If I am a conspirator because I object [to the rigged presidential election], then you are a partner of those who stole this nation's vote and are disloyal to the nation."
…Challenges to the regime now come even from prisoners. When Mr. Ahmadinejad challenged Barack Obama to a debate this month, a Green Movement website reported with grim admiration that five journalists in Tehran's infamous Evin Prison had invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to come to jail and debate them.
Very little of this news reaches a mass Western audience, and one wonders to what extent Western governments understand what's going on. If they do, their failure to support the democratic revolutionaries is all the more lamentable. READ at WSJ: Cracks in the Iranian Monolith By Michael Leeden
…That opposition is fed by enduring social and economic crises. Unemployment last month reached 15% and is as high as 45% in some regions. In Tehran, health officials warned pregnant women and mothers of young children not to drink the water. Electrical failures are widespread. Taxi drivers have been striking around the country this summer, some because of the long lines at gas stations and others because of a shortage of compressed natural gas. The sanctions seem to be having an effect.
As these pressures have mounted, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—against whom Iranians chant "Death to the Dictator!" at public gatherings and nightly from their rooftops—has sought to reaffirm his authority. Late last month he issued a fatwa declaring that his opinions had a status equal to those of the prophet Mohammed. The fatwa caused such consternation that it was removed from his website, then quietly returned a few days later.
…President Ahmadinejad has also tried to buttress his popular support, first by claiming that "stupid Zionists" were trying to kill him, and then by putting out a story—which few in Iran took seriously—of an assassination attempt on his motorcade. As usual, the "report" went through various iterations: first it was a grenade, then a firecracker, then nothing at all.
…These various debacles have strengthened the Green Movement, and opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi continue to launch serious verbal attacks on the regime. When the head of the powerful Guardian Council recently accused the Greens of receiving money from the Saudis and the Americans, Mr. Karroubi gave him the back of his hand: "If I am a conspirator because I object [to the rigged presidential election], then you are a partner of those who stole this nation's vote and are disloyal to the nation."
…Challenges to the regime now come even from prisoners. When Mr. Ahmadinejad challenged Barack Obama to a debate this month, a Green Movement website reported with grim admiration that five journalists in Tehran's infamous Evin Prison had invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to come to jail and debate them.
Very little of this news reaches a mass Western audience, and one wonders to what extent Western governments understand what's going on. If they do, their failure to support the democratic revolutionaries is all the more lamentable. READ at WSJ: Cracks in the Iranian Monolith By Michael Leeden
Friday, August 27, 2010
Sulayman, Feisal Rauf, Bin Talal and the Muslim Brotherhood Involved in the Future of Ground Zero
We have two fronts that honest people will have to fight against in order to preserve our modern way of life: The dishonest climate warming crowd and the invasion of Islamofascists ideals (and their goal to spread Sharia worldwide) in America. And the Saudi's are right in the middle of the second threat.
Islamofascism: New dots are emerging from the probe into who's behind the Ground Zero mosque, and the radical Muslim Brotherhood is coming into view.
While a couple of U.S. nonprofits — the Cordoba Initiative and its sister, the American Society for Muslim Advancement — are coordinating the New York project, they hardly give the full picture. A Saudi charity has sunk more than $300,000 into ASMA. It's called the Kingdom Foundation — headed by Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi prince whose 9/11 relief check was rejected after he blamed the attacks on U.S. foreign policy.
Bin Talal is a major financier of Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the U.S. His foundation is run by Saudi hijabi Muna Abu Sulayman, who appears on ASMA's Web site as one of its "Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow."
"Her work," according to her official bio, "focuses on increasing understanding between Islam and the West through establishment of academic centers and programs, both in the Middle East and the United States."
Sulayman, who spends much of her time in the U.S., happens to be the daughter of Dr. AbdulHamid Abu Sulayman, "one of the most important figures in the history of the global Muslim Brotherhood," according to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report.
So? The Egypt-based Brotherhood is the parent of Hamas and al-Qaida and the source of most of the jihadi ideology and related terror throughout the world today. Citing its secret U.S. archives, prosecutors say the Brotherhood has a plan to "destroy" America "from within," and is using its agents and front groups in the U.S. to carry out that strategy. Like the mafia, it's highly organized, and uses shells and cutouts to launder money...READ at IBD " Mosque's Saudi Patron".
Islamofascism: New dots are emerging from the probe into who's behind the Ground Zero mosque, and the radical Muslim Brotherhood is coming into view.
While a couple of U.S. nonprofits — the Cordoba Initiative and its sister, the American Society for Muslim Advancement — are coordinating the New York project, they hardly give the full picture. A Saudi charity has sunk more than $300,000 into ASMA. It's called the Kingdom Foundation — headed by Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi prince whose 9/11 relief check was rejected after he blamed the attacks on U.S. foreign policy.
Bin Talal is a major financier of Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the U.S. His foundation is run by Saudi hijabi Muna Abu Sulayman, who appears on ASMA's Web site as one of its "Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow."
"Her work," according to her official bio, "focuses on increasing understanding between Islam and the West through establishment of academic centers and programs, both in the Middle East and the United States."
Sulayman, who spends much of her time in the U.S., happens to be the daughter of Dr. AbdulHamid Abu Sulayman, "one of the most important figures in the history of the global Muslim Brotherhood," according to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report.
So? The Egypt-based Brotherhood is the parent of Hamas and al-Qaida and the source of most of the jihadi ideology and related terror throughout the world today. Citing its secret U.S. archives, prosecutors say the Brotherhood has a plan to "destroy" America "from within," and is using its agents and front groups in the U.S. to carry out that strategy. Like the mafia, it's highly organized, and uses shells and cutouts to launder money...READ at IBD " Mosque's Saudi Patron".
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Maybe Obama Should Read Thomas Jefferson and Learn What is Good Government
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.” - Thomas Jefferson, “First Inaugural Address,” 1801 -
"Otherwise free to regulate their OWN pursuits of industry and improvement"
"Otherwise free to regulate their OWN pursuits of industry and improvement"
Monday, August 23, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Survival of The West
Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes a very interesting piece regarding how the West is declining in power and how Islam is exploding demographically while China is becoming an economic giant. While we have a President and congress that are taking us to the poor house the rest of the world is observing the weakness in America today and positioning themselves for the future ... and Obama (preceded by Bush) is drowning us in debt, controversy and excess.
What do the controversies around the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, the eviction of American missionaries from Morocco earlier this year, the minaret ban in Switzerland last year, and the recent burka ban in France have in common? All four are framed in the Western media as issues of religious tolerance. But that is not their essence. Fundamentally, they are all symptoms of what the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington called the "Clash of Civilizations," particularly the clash between Islam and the West.
Huntington's argument is worth summarizing briefly for those who now only remember his striking title. The essential building block of the post-Cold War world, he wrote, are seven or eight historical civilizations of which the Western, the Muslim and the Confucian are the most important.
The balance of power among these civilizations, he argued, is shifting. The West is declining in relative power, Islam is exploding demographically, and Asian civilizations—especially China—are economically ascendant. Huntington also said that a civilization-based world order is emerging in which states that share cultural affinities will cooperate with each other and group themselves around the leading states of their civilization.
The West's universalist pretensions are increasingly bringing it into conflict with the other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China. Thus the survival of the West depends on Americans, Europeans and other Westerners reaffirming their shared civilization as unique—and uniting to defend it against challenges from non-Western civilizations...READ at WSJ - "How to Win the Clash of Civilizations".
What do the controversies around the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, the eviction of American missionaries from Morocco earlier this year, the minaret ban in Switzerland last year, and the recent burka ban in France have in common? All four are framed in the Western media as issues of religious tolerance. But that is not their essence. Fundamentally, they are all symptoms of what the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington called the "Clash of Civilizations," particularly the clash between Islam and the West.
Huntington's argument is worth summarizing briefly for those who now only remember his striking title. The essential building block of the post-Cold War world, he wrote, are seven or eight historical civilizations of which the Western, the Muslim and the Confucian are the most important.
The balance of power among these civilizations, he argued, is shifting. The West is declining in relative power, Islam is exploding demographically, and Asian civilizations—especially China—are economically ascendant. Huntington also said that a civilization-based world order is emerging in which states that share cultural affinities will cooperate with each other and group themselves around the leading states of their civilization.
The West's universalist pretensions are increasingly bringing it into conflict with the other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China. Thus the survival of the West depends on Americans, Europeans and other Westerners reaffirming their shared civilization as unique—and uniting to defend it against challenges from non-Western civilizations...READ at WSJ - "How to Win the Clash of Civilizations".
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
"Government workers have incomes --30% higher and benefits 50% more costly on average than those received by equivalent private-sector workers"
Ayn Rand told a story over 50 years ago that forewarned us what would happen in America if we allowed politicians to run amok. That story is called "Atlas Shrugged" and it is amazing in its parallels with today's events. If you haven't read it - you should.
...This shift of wealth from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector is stickier today than it was in "Atlas Shrugged" because government is now a union shop, with pay having little to do with performance. Unionized government cannot be downsized easily, and its employees have effectively become the country's most powerful entitlement special-interest group.
Thus, government-run schools controlled by the teachers unions can fail decade after decade without consequence or substantive reform. The government takeover of the health care industry — aka "ObamaCare" — was a high priority not because it was good for the majority of Americans, but because the ruling elite want to expand unionization, entitlement and dependency.
The media chase scandal and sensationalism but largely ignore the most consequential story of our time: the Obama administration's drive to shift wealth and power from the productive private sector to the nonproductive public sector. Rand calls this appropriation of wealth by the government nothing less than looting.
For her, the primary source of social good is in ingenuity and hard work that produce wealth in the form of invention and technological breakthrough. Crony capitalism and forced redistribution of wealth by faceless government bureaucrats is anything but virtuous.
Rand warns us that government policies that engender entitlement and cause business owners to go on strike and withhold their capital are detrimental to the economy. What compounds this problem today is that an out-of-control profligate government that enlarges dependence also sets us up for a greater economic crisis than the last one.
Fortunately, the catalyst for course correction is around the corner. Ironically, President Obama can be thanked for making this midterm election an overdue referendum on liberalism. Average Americans are now more informed and engaged than they have been in generations, and they are highly motivated to vote... READ at Investor's Business Daily- "Atlas Shrugged: The CliffNotes Today".
...This shift of wealth from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector is stickier today than it was in "Atlas Shrugged" because government is now a union shop, with pay having little to do with performance. Unionized government cannot be downsized easily, and its employees have effectively become the country's most powerful entitlement special-interest group.
Thus, government-run schools controlled by the teachers unions can fail decade after decade without consequence or substantive reform. The government takeover of the health care industry — aka "ObamaCare" — was a high priority not because it was good for the majority of Americans, but because the ruling elite want to expand unionization, entitlement and dependency.
The media chase scandal and sensationalism but largely ignore the most consequential story of our time: the Obama administration's drive to shift wealth and power from the productive private sector to the nonproductive public sector. Rand calls this appropriation of wealth by the government nothing less than looting.
For her, the primary source of social good is in ingenuity and hard work that produce wealth in the form of invention and technological breakthrough. Crony capitalism and forced redistribution of wealth by faceless government bureaucrats is anything but virtuous.
Rand warns us that government policies that engender entitlement and cause business owners to go on strike and withhold their capital are detrimental to the economy. What compounds this problem today is that an out-of-control profligate government that enlarges dependence also sets us up for a greater economic crisis than the last one.
Fortunately, the catalyst for course correction is around the corner. Ironically, President Obama can be thanked for making this midterm election an overdue referendum on liberalism. Average Americans are now more informed and engaged than they have been in generations, and they are highly motivated to vote... READ at Investor's Business Daily- "Atlas Shrugged: The CliffNotes Today".
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Elites Drive the Little People Like Cattle - We Must Not Let Them
These words were written by Ayn Rand about socialism decades ago. Has anything changed? Still there are men who would tell us how to live our lives. We the "little people" must be driven like cattle to live according to the "elite" classes. And so it has been ever since the history of man has been written. It is only the men of princple who understand what freedom is and how the government can corrupt this idea who can defend us. One of these few people is Ayn Rand. Here's a sampling of what she has written.
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. (For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand).
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in "society as a whole," i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.
The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia-or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure-terrifying, that is, if one's motive is men's welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly. ("The Monument Builders" in The Virtue of selfishness by Ayn Rand).
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. (For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand).
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in "society as a whole," i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.
The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia-or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure-terrifying, that is, if one's motive is men's welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly. ("The Monument Builders" in The Virtue of selfishness by Ayn Rand).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)