« Raising the Bar for Teachers – Really? (updated 11dec12) | Main | War of Words »

12 December 2012


Ryan Mount

There's enough plausible deniability built into the current miniscule proposed tax hikes on the wealthy to give the Keynesians a way out if it fails to do nothing. Which, as you point out, it will.

They can say, "hey look, we're still in a recession because we didn't tax enough." I'm certain they are aware of this. For all of their cynical faults, the [real] Keynesians are generally sharp in the math department. They already know that Obama's deal to "protect the middle class" is going to be a train wreck. So this is not about any fiscal cliff, this is about setting up tax hikes for everyone over the next couple of years.

Generally, I would be supportive of tax hikes if I knew we were trying to control spending. But we're apparently not interested in the latter. So instead, we're just gonna give the the liquor cabinet keys to the teenagers and say "f!@# it."

Todd Juvinall

We need to change the vernacular a bit. From now on I am calling those people the sheeple call "rich", as "successful". The rich in the minds of the sheeple are the boys and girls of the wealthy mom and dad's who inherited the silver spoon. The successful are in my opinion those that actually pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and made a go of it under capitalism. So from now on I will no longer use the word "rich" and will use the word "successful".


"The state’s unions have held its workers back for decades, and caused an exodus of employers and the more talented employees to greener pastures in other states."

~RB~ (main post above)

is more accurately written as:

"The state’s employers have searched for decades to find ways to destroy the unions and keep more of the fruits of the their labors for themselves. They found their salvation in China, and the increase in wealth of the top 1% from 8% of the USA wealth to over 20% in less than 30 years proves it."

And yes, it will get worse, as automation increases, and then it will get worser yet, as there is nobody left in this country with any money to buy stuff, and the right doesn't give a damn and has no solutions for the Common People of this country. As far as they're concerned, they won it fair and square and screw the other 300 million USA citizens, even including the soldiers who fight to protect this now perverted vision of "every man a king."

BTW, the Michigan law exempts the police and fire. They get to keep their mandatory unions. Why is that?

Ryan Mount

I just don't understand what the big deal is. I'm pro-union, but I'm also pro right to work. They can exist together. In fact, having both seems to be congruent with the letter and intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You can join a union, as per the 1st Amendment, but you can' be required to support things you don't agree with, like joining a union and still get the job, as per the 14th Amendment.

That damn 14th Amendment again. :-)

Does a right to work law weaken a union? Well, we're going to need to choose our words wisely here. "Weaken" is the wrong word choice. What is does is lessen its scope and reach insofar as they violate an individual's civil rights. Now I understand how reasonable Progressives will say that unionism is a far from perfect mechanism, and that they are at worst a necessary evil against corporatism and I guess the government (interesting when you think about those last two proper nouns: corporatism and the government), but no one is saying unions have to go away (I wish they would for government jobs as FDR wanted), right to work laws simply bring union participation in line with the civil rights prescribed in the Constitution.


Well Ryan, for one, the Constitution says we have a right to associate with whom we want, does it not? Employers associate with other capitalists, and workers associate with other workers. You don't want the gov to interfere with how the capitalists associate with one another, and many of us don't want the same interference with with how workers associate.

A a practical matter, workers get screwed in RTW states, and if you like, later when I have more time, I'll publish one of the hundreds of posters that can explain that to bright pre-teen.

George Rebane

My main concern with unions is that they have historically been the hotbeds of corruption and breeding grounds for collectivism. Their record of imposing destructive work rules that weaken/destroy employers and jobs is too long to recount.

If unions organized labor to make it more productive and give their employer a better chance in the marketplace, then they would be doing markedly different things with their union dues instead of spending it to elect toady and corrupt politicians that return favors through the destruction of incentive, entrepreneurship, and the overall economy.

Again, the post-war history of Europe is a good place to start one's education in these matters. And that learning will progress with the examination of the how the workers in RTW states have fared compared to states that force union membership.

Ryan Mount

> Well Ryan, for one, the Constitution says we have a right to associate with whom we want, does it not?

Doug. See my comment above regarding the 1st Amendment. It's about individual rights, which are protected with in the scope of the Constitution. It's all fixed by answering a simple question: why should I or anyone be denied a job because one doesn't belong to a union?

I find it hilarious when people (not you Doug), complain about how the Constitution is such an old, irrelevant document until they get pulled over illegally by the police or they invade their homes without a proper warrant under specious reasons. Suddenly those same folks cling to the 4th Amendment like a dying Bible-thumper does to Luke's account of the Resurrection.

And if you're trying to catch me in a "Corporations are people" slip-up, that's not going to happen. But just so I'm unequivocally clear, I am not anti-union. I am anti-some group limiting (discriminating really) my or anyone's access to anything because I do not belong to their club. Now this is where I somewhat depart from traditional Right Wing Libertarian thinking.


The spending will continue until the deficits improve.

George Rebane

MikeyMcD 1016am - Excellent! - have incorporated it as the tag line to this post.

Ryan Mount


Did you see the Fed vote today to keep buying up mortgages at the rate of $45 [gulp] billion per month? Mr. Lacker, as always, told the rest of the board to go f' themselves. Love that guy as much as any man could love a Federal Reserve President.

Anyhow, they want to continue the "free" money giveaway until 2015, presumably when the real fiscal cliff will be upon us.

So I think we have our reason why bond rates are so low relative to the pent up inflation that we should be experiencing. If you have a customer (the Fed) buying up bonds and mortgages, it will depress the market. It's a brilliant and cynical Keynesian maneuver. Then they can turn around and tell us like the Joker, "Why so serious now? There's nothing to worry about until bond rates rise."

What happens in 2015?

George Rebane

Just finished watching The Bernank live online. The effect of his usually long-winded message could be summarized by Mikey's 1016am - 'Spending will continue until the deficits improve.' The precious metals immediately jumped, and I presume they will continue to have a good run since no one believes that 6.5% unemployment, 3.5% GDP growth rate, or inflation below 2.5% will be achieved/maintained during any imaginable future. Time to cinch up our fiscal seat belts one more notch.

Todd Juvinall

But Rush just announced the return of 1-800-flowers! They bolted when Sandra Fluke was popular. I guess capitalism works.


Ryan, the markets (stocks, bonds, precious metals, real estate, currencies) continue to be openly manipulated by the central planners. The FED is repeatedly adding hot air to a balloon that will pop. The invasion of the free markets by the FED has increased the frequency and magnitude of financial crisis. When bond yields pop there will be liquid in the gutters (tears or blood?).

One only need look to the central planners department of fill-in-the-blank to see how this will all play out.

Where the socialists faith in government central planning comes from is beyond me.

The only way we get unemployment under 6.5% OR inflation back under 2.5% OR GDP above 3.5% is to lie about the equation/inputs.



Ryan Mount


Eventually, the can they keep kicking down the road will run out of road and they'll have to really start monetizing the debt instead of this bond shell game. And then any first year econ student should be able to tell us what happens next.

You'd think, wondering out loud, that the herds of youngsters in student loan hell would wish for the Treasury and the Fed to start pumping real dollars into the economy to lower their debt burden. Inflation, you'd think, would be their friend. But apparently they like being in pain given who they voted for. Stockholm Syndrome I'm guessing.


#1.) we have been openly monetizing our debt for years now (FED's balance sheet soon to hit $3trillion, was in the billions just 7 years ago) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-06/fed-balance-sheet-composition-update

#2.) student loans are non-recourse government guaranteed moral hazard infused time bombs. Delinquencies are soaring : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/scariest-chart-quarter-student-debt-bubble-officially-pops-90-day-delinquency-rate-g

#3.) the term Inflation has lost all meaning. With oil, gas, healthcare, education, groceries all hitting all time highs in 2012 'they' have the guts to tell us inflation is lower than 2.5%, I call BS. Definition of "Inflation" has changed 9x since 1996.

The system is too fragile, leveraged and interconnected to allow this level of central planning to turn out well.


#4.) we live in a world where savers are FORCED to pay for charity dished out to debtors. Savers (think retirees on fixed incomes) must sacrifice so the central planners can pay for votes rendered.

Sorry Suzie Saver your CD's will continue to earn negative real rates for at least the next 3 years so we can help your financially idiotic neighbor (guy with overpriced 'education' and new granite counter tops) who voted for the Keynesian boob in the White House (Bush and Obama).

George Rebane

A recent report that updates the resilience of STEM jobs may be found in the update to 'Owing $100T+, STEM Jobs Bill, Workplace Harassment' here

Russ Steele

One of the issues is that STEM jobs are not growing in Califronia.

Check out this graphic : http://tinyurl.com/chcp3ny

Where is California on this list?

George Rebane

RussS 636pm - good graphic that corroborates California's death spiral. As has been pointed out here and on Russ Steele's blog, California is now an exporter of technology jobs even from its remaining technology companies. To the extent that these companies continue to grow, they make it so that the growth occurs somewhere besides California.


The falling home prices in Santa Clara have allow migrant farm workers to buy McMansions vacated by escaping tech-tycoons.

George Rebane

Re JesusB's 1001pm - See how easy it is achieve social justice - just flush the state down the toilet, and voila!


Some of the grandest homes in many inner cities once housed the wealthiest, and then they fell into ruin, when the wealthy took off for the suburbs. These days the really wealthy hedge their bets with spreads all over the planet. The smartest, or most paranoid, have sealed the deals by closing the mineshaft gap in spades, golden spades. And as the stored food hits the expiry dates, get a tax deduction passing it on. At least we have something of similar senses of humor.

The comments to this entry are closed.