1 - 10 Next
Advice to the Secret Service: If anyone comes near the president wearing a cast on his arm marked "I love Obamacare," you might want to check it closely for a revolver hidden inside.
Sounds like Illinois is almost as bad as Michigan.
To be perfectly honest, the dealers didn’t really know HOW much they cost according to this article. Beyond the maybe, maybe-not misleading headline lies painful reality. When I went to a lecture on the Toyota Prius a few years ago, back then the Toyota representative said new batteries were $10,000 for the Prius. However, that is just the start since it requires special training and certification to be allowed to change them. Sales wise, compared to the Volt, the Edsel was a roaring success—in spite of an overall smaller market. According to the article below, the Volt has sold roughly 23,000 units over two years. By comparison, Edsel new car registrations: 1957—26,881 1958—38,531 1959—40,778* During turkey season, Volt owners better borrow a neighbor’s car or ride a bicycle. *Jerry Heasely, The Production Figure Book for U.S. Cars, 1977, Motorbooks International, Osceola, Wisconsin:
In response to:

An Unconscionable Silence

gmallast Wrote: Feb 20, 2014 11:18 AM
As I keep saying, someone ought to remind President Obama what happened to England's King Charles I for trying to rule without Parliament. The way these things play out historically is the narcissisitic leader pushes, pushes, pushes, and people acquiesce, acquiesce, acquiesce—to a point. Each time he pushes he angers another bunch of people. Thus a growing but invisible movement against him. Then he does one last thing. The bow has been stretched to its limit and the arrow flies. The incident--the over-reach—that sets off the rebellion may be something trivial. Regardless it is the one thing too many. As former Ramparts editor and reformed New Leftist David Horowitz pointed out in his book Radical Son, leftists consider due process, constitutions, deliberation, public debate, and balance of powers as bumps in the road to Utopia. All we need to have the perfect world is to have the perfect leader come down from on high and be free to act to dictate everything, and expropriate all wealth and redistribute it according to the ideal. Of course, the very mark of the conservative or libertarian is a constrained vision which denies perfectibility on earth and most emphatically denies the very possibility of there being a self-styled “Great Noble Holy Perfect Leader” who is anything but a corrupt, arrogant, ignorant, narcissistic jerk. The very mark of a George Washington, a Thomas Jefferson, a Calvin Coolidge, or a Ronald Reagan is that he is NOT fool enough to think he can perfect the world and is painfully aware of his own intellectual limitations and what can be achieved in this world. This was pointed out by Dr. Thomas Sowell in one of the most important but neglected books on politics and ideology, A Conflict of Visions. Even granting the Democrats are all for Obama’s over-reaching, and the Republican establishment consists of wusses too cowardly to really do anything, one day Obama will push too hard, too far, and all Hell will break loose. But I can’t say in advance how it will play out. My crystal ball fell off the table and broke years ago. Ultimately, Obama will pay dearly for his libido dominandi. Just like King Charles.
Actually the linking of Hitler and Obamacare may be more darkly pertinent than you think. There was an article some years ago in The Freeman .pointing out that the way some of the laws which resulted first in the killing of mentally retarded and terminally ill patents and later six million Jews and other "untermenschen" was as a way of saving Germany's over-burdened socialized medicine scheme which had been in place since the 1870s. You know,"relievingthose whose lives are not worth living of the burden of life."
The Bush-Obama Depression rolls on. It has been 11 years that I have been trying to get a job. For myself, I am very depressed. Mr. Shedlock’s summary is very useful. If I have a criticism of Mr. Shedlock’s article and, indeed, of all such articles as well as the way the government compiles its numbers, it is confusing a statistical formality with reality. It is assumed by the way the BLS calculates its numbers if someone hasn’t gotten a job within a year, he”drops out”of the job market. Is that a valid assumption? Of course not. There is logically no necessary correlation between how long one has been looking for a job and whether he has “dropped out” of the job market: that is, stopped looking. He MAY have given up and resigned himself to losing everything and sleeping on a park bench. He MAY also be looking more desperately than ever. But there is nothing there. To make a policy prescription on the basis of a statistical formality assuming it is reality is absurd. In my libertarian heart of hearts I can argue the people would be better off with a stable dollar than government unemployment “insurance.” But it is NOT a logical argument against extending the term of unemployment insurance payments on the assumption that people still out of work after x number of months have become lazy sluggards who need to be forced back into the job search just because the BLS number crunchers ASSUME that anyone who has been looking for a job for more than a year has “dropped out” of the job search. Let’s not make fools of ourselves. As I noted, I have been searching daily for a job for 11 years. That dumps me out of the job-seeking statistics. I am now receiving a small Social Security payment. That dumps me out of the job-seeking statistics. I have backed into a part-time handyman business which also dumps me out of the job-seeking statistics except for the nebulous “working part time while seeking full time employment” category. But still considered “employed.” The real situation is actually much worse than Mr. Shedlock’s article implies.
In response to:

War in The Capital of Capitalism

gmallast Wrote: Jan 03, 2014 11:13 AM
Welcome to Detoit-on-the-Hudson
I remember when then President Ronald Reagan raised the flag, blew the bugle, and yelled “Charge!” on this issue and the rest of the conservative movement yawned and sat around quibbling over the details of the proposal so naturally it went nowhere. Meanwhile the left huffed and puffed about “tax cuts for the rich.” As an economic “Austrian” I consider econometrics to be to economics what astrology is to astronomy: a complex intellectual system based on non-existent relationships. Mr. Mitchell is, of course, pretty much an “Austrian” too. But we often have to grasp at straws. But you don’t need a pocket calculator, let alone a Cray supercomputer to figure out punishing the people who finance and organize the production of the commodities workers consume and the jobs that produce them does not do good things for the workers.. After all,,momentarily ignoring taxes, the vast majority of business gross revenue goes to wages (about 80%) and only a small part (around 3%-12%) goes to profits. Thus it should be obvious to any dumb dumb that raising corporate taxes affects the workers most. But this article and the study on which it is based throw some nice statistical mumbo-jumbo at what should be a simple issue of common sense. But a lot of people are like former Ford Motor Company president and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and seem to believe what cannot be expressed in numbers does not exist. So maybe this article will do a little good. Any way you look at it, in the current climate, the proposal to cut corporate taxes is a tough sell. Myself, I need a job. I DO NOT need more patently idiotic class-warfare rhetoric and imbecilic policy based thereon.
In response to:

Real Life Example of Welfare Reform

gmallast Wrote: Dec 26, 2013 4:00 AM
But what good is a work requirement when there are no jobs because high taxes and over-regulation have either sent employers out of the state or nation--or out of business? How in the computer age do you actually determine if somone is actually looking for a job? Nowadays you almost always have to apply on-line for all but the smallest employers. What we have here is just another example of how government "help" for the poor tends to try to fix the damage caused by one form of rigid micromanaging by substituing another. A private charity system could be more flexible and personal in dealing with the actual situation of each client in need of help. Better able to distinguish the scofflaws from the people in real need. The government welfare system does NOT exist to help he poor. It exists to get support for power-hungry politicians from naive people. Anyone who thinks otherwise should be made poor then have to sit two hours on a hard plastic chair filling out pages and pages of forms to the accompaniment of bad Musak, and finally meet with a case worker who is no real help at all. Having been rendered poor by liberals demolishing the job market first in Michigan then in the nation, I have learned more about the realities of the welfare system than I ever wanted to know despite having put forth every effort to avoid it as long as possible..
Mr. Mitchell, I hate the government unemployment insurance program in principle. But we also need to be fair. I am in the process of job hunting daily. There are no jobs--or precious few. Far fewer than the number of people needing work. About the only way you can get a job is prove you don't need one since employers won't hire anyone who isn't currently working. In fact, getting a job is down to playing job roulette. There are so many applicants for each opening, you only get hired if your application/resume happens to accidentally fall in the right place in the pile and you are currently doing exactly the same job for which they are hiring. Way too much real capital has been wasted by government to provide the needed jobs in the needed fields. All there are are part time Macjobs and not enough of those.
1 - 10 Next