Newsweek Magazine claims that the recession is over. Barack Obama says he sees good signs that the economy is beginning to pull out of the hole. The government claims that the economy shrank in the last quarter by only 1% (don't know how that qualifies as good news, but it's not as bad as it was), and there are signs of at least some rebound in certain sectors of the housing industry.
However, this supposed 'good news' runs the risk of providing false assurance for Americans at a time when any celebration is very premature.
Do doubt there will be pockets of good economic news here and there. And no doubt the economy will experience some healing for the short term.
But the overall picture is dire and getting worse by the day.
There is no way the country can sustain the level of debt we are incurring without a total collapse sooner or later. And let's not forget that the baby boomers will be retiring in full force for the next 15 years, overloading an already overburdened system that teeters on the brink of disaster.
This article at Human Events is an absolute must-read for those who want the real truth concerning the consequences of 'generations of debt.'
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
"Economics, Population, and Abortion"
Our guest blogger today is Rev. Kharma of Kharma Futures.This is a thought-provoking read that deserves your consideration.
Economics, Population, and Abortion
by Rev. Kharma
I have read many different articles over the last few years addressing economic trends. In the last year they have focused on the housing bubble and it’s relevance to our current economic crisis. Inflated housing prices spiraled out of control, and eventually collapsed which created a chain reaction throughout the economy of the US and the world. Often we are told that the economic problems we face will not settle out until the housing market rebounds. When we begin to buy houses again, at re-inflated prices the US economy will re-inflate and we will back at our old pace once more, spending money we don’t have.
This afternoon I opened my newest issue of First Things. It sat on my desk for several days, I have been apprehensive about reading it. The original editor and driving force, Fr. Richard Neuhaus died earlier this year. The journal has inspired and educated me for more than a decade since I read the first issue I encountered. His passing has made me wonder just who is capable of picking up the banner he so ably carried during his tenure.
In this issue there is an essay, dealing with economics and families. I have seen bits and pieces and hints about this, but Daniel Goldman had fleshed out and given life to the ideas as no one has ever done. He describes the theory that it is the distribution of young and old that has continued to refresh and renew our economy for generations. The young families have need of houses and all the accessories which would accompany that. The older members of our population have need of investment and growth of financial security. This has worked for generations, providing a continuous cycle of growth and expansion, opportunity and advantage for all concerned.
The demographics since the late 1960’s have begun to erode this model. Increasingly families are smaller, fewer children means fewer and smaller houses. As happens more and more often, there are single parent homes and homes with no children at all.
Make no mistake here, I am not, and never will criticize someone who has a small family, or even no children at all. Not everyone is cut out to raise a family.
The problem here is not the occasional small family or childless couple. The problem is a society that has devalued the family entirely. We have created a new ethos where having a family and raising children is not only removed from the primary role of a society, it is now frowned upon. Those who have a family are regarded as outlaws, and the green movement had demonized them. We are no longer sustaining our population. Societies are aging. We hear over and over that the US Social Security program will be bankrupt due to a lack of wage earners paying to support those receiving benefits. Virtually every Western nation is moving toward demographic extinction. In his article, Mr. Goldman displays a chart which shows the age of ‘Advanced Nations”. In 1965 the population aged older than 65 was approximately 10% of the general population. Those under age 4 made up about 8%. Projected for the year 2050, the trend shows a remarkable shift. Over aged 65 is projected to be more than 30%, while those under age 4 show less than 5%. Clearly this presents an unsustainable strain on the traditional economic cycle.
What is it that could account for this? Mr. Goldman’s article is not meant to address this.
However, as I read it a number kept presenting itself to my mind. I kept thinking of a number I have heard over and over. That number is in the range of 50 million.
That number is the estimated number of humans who would be current Americans had they not been aborted. Our culture of death has wiped out the hope of our generation.
All the economics lectures, and demographic analysis ever written cannot erase that fact. The Culture of Death that has enveloped our society has caused a devastating erosion to our ability to fund our own nation.
We can debate deficit spending, socialism, and capitalism, democrats and republicans in government, but we face a stark reality.
America is rapidly aging. We are aging as a nation because we have become essentially self-centered. The inconvenience of bearing and raising children has been alleviated by the simple answer of eliminating the children considered such a burden.
This is certainly one of a panoply of factors which include delaying marriage, reduced size of families, and many other fractured and altered family structures. However the fact remains, that had fifty million children not been murdered before they were born, we would be facing an entirely different demographic today. Perhaps individual wealth would not have grown so fast. Individual self fulfillment might not be such a sought after goal. We surely would not have a society which faces extinction simply because we are growing older and are not able to fund our expansion. One may debate the morality of the issue, and many do. The straight economics are simply numbers. We are dying, and we are not replacing our dying members. There are many ways to look at it, but there is simply no way to see it differently. We are paying the price of convenience. We are paying now for the elimination of a generation which we never permitted to exist.
The culture of death has created a wound in our society and the infection continues to weaken us. Combined with the unlimited demand for government payment for individual needs we are facing a bankrupt nation. America, we are paying for our choices, no matter if we decide to face it or ignore it.
We can look at so many of the dangers we face as a society and point back to the devaluation of live embodied by the abortion culture. The devaluation of life spreads and creates an ethos of total selfishness which infests and debases every aspect of our world today. The total self absorption, the movement toward the importance of the self and the instant gratification which has been exalted as the pinnacle of achievement all flow logically from the mindset which decides that one individuals life is more important than any other consideration. We are no longer looking toward self reliance, but rather to self preservation.
The nation which was formed with a minimal government to protect basic rights is now a nation which wants a strong government to provide everything at the expense of others. Instead of a generation willing to go to war to save the world, we have a generation which seems to want to beg the world to save them. Instead of raising children and providing for the future, we want to have the government raise and provide for us.
We have taken the dream of the founders and turned it on its ear. We have perverted the original republic and corrupted it to a democracy which feeds off its children instead of protecting them.
That cliff is getting closer and closer and the nation is sliding faster and faster into the abyss.
Economics, Population, and Abortion
by Rev. Kharma
I have read many different articles over the last few years addressing economic trends. In the last year they have focused on the housing bubble and it’s relevance to our current economic crisis. Inflated housing prices spiraled out of control, and eventually collapsed which created a chain reaction throughout the economy of the US and the world. Often we are told that the economic problems we face will not settle out until the housing market rebounds. When we begin to buy houses again, at re-inflated prices the US economy will re-inflate and we will back at our old pace once more, spending money we don’t have.
This afternoon I opened my newest issue of First Things. It sat on my desk for several days, I have been apprehensive about reading it. The original editor and driving force, Fr. Richard Neuhaus died earlier this year. The journal has inspired and educated me for more than a decade since I read the first issue I encountered. His passing has made me wonder just who is capable of picking up the banner he so ably carried during his tenure.
In this issue there is an essay, dealing with economics and families. I have seen bits and pieces and hints about this, but Daniel Goldman had fleshed out and given life to the ideas as no one has ever done. He describes the theory that it is the distribution of young and old that has continued to refresh and renew our economy for generations. The young families have need of houses and all the accessories which would accompany that. The older members of our population have need of investment and growth of financial security. This has worked for generations, providing a continuous cycle of growth and expansion, opportunity and advantage for all concerned.
The demographics since the late 1960’s have begun to erode this model. Increasingly families are smaller, fewer children means fewer and smaller houses. As happens more and more often, there are single parent homes and homes with no children at all.
Make no mistake here, I am not, and never will criticize someone who has a small family, or even no children at all. Not everyone is cut out to raise a family.
The problem here is not the occasional small family or childless couple. The problem is a society that has devalued the family entirely. We have created a new ethos where having a family and raising children is not only removed from the primary role of a society, it is now frowned upon. Those who have a family are regarded as outlaws, and the green movement had demonized them. We are no longer sustaining our population. Societies are aging. We hear over and over that the US Social Security program will be bankrupt due to a lack of wage earners paying to support those receiving benefits. Virtually every Western nation is moving toward demographic extinction. In his article, Mr. Goldman displays a chart which shows the age of ‘Advanced Nations”. In 1965 the population aged older than 65 was approximately 10% of the general population. Those under age 4 made up about 8%. Projected for the year 2050, the trend shows a remarkable shift. Over aged 65 is projected to be more than 30%, while those under age 4 show less than 5%. Clearly this presents an unsustainable strain on the traditional economic cycle.
What is it that could account for this? Mr. Goldman’s article is not meant to address this.
However, as I read it a number kept presenting itself to my mind. I kept thinking of a number I have heard over and over. That number is in the range of 50 million.
That number is the estimated number of humans who would be current Americans had they not been aborted. Our culture of death has wiped out the hope of our generation.
All the economics lectures, and demographic analysis ever written cannot erase that fact. The Culture of Death that has enveloped our society has caused a devastating erosion to our ability to fund our own nation.
We can debate deficit spending, socialism, and capitalism, democrats and republicans in government, but we face a stark reality.
America is rapidly aging. We are aging as a nation because we have become essentially self-centered. The inconvenience of bearing and raising children has been alleviated by the simple answer of eliminating the children considered such a burden.
This is certainly one of a panoply of factors which include delaying marriage, reduced size of families, and many other fractured and altered family structures. However the fact remains, that had fifty million children not been murdered before they were born, we would be facing an entirely different demographic today. Perhaps individual wealth would not have grown so fast. Individual self fulfillment might not be such a sought after goal. We surely would not have a society which faces extinction simply because we are growing older and are not able to fund our expansion. One may debate the morality of the issue, and many do. The straight economics are simply numbers. We are dying, and we are not replacing our dying members. There are many ways to look at it, but there is simply no way to see it differently. We are paying the price of convenience. We are paying now for the elimination of a generation which we never permitted to exist.
The culture of death has created a wound in our society and the infection continues to weaken us. Combined with the unlimited demand for government payment for individual needs we are facing a bankrupt nation. America, we are paying for our choices, no matter if we decide to face it or ignore it.
We can look at so many of the dangers we face as a society and point back to the devaluation of live embodied by the abortion culture. The devaluation of life spreads and creates an ethos of total selfishness which infests and debases every aspect of our world today. The total self absorption, the movement toward the importance of the self and the instant gratification which has been exalted as the pinnacle of achievement all flow logically from the mindset which decides that one individuals life is more important than any other consideration. We are no longer looking toward self reliance, but rather to self preservation.
The nation which was formed with a minimal government to protect basic rights is now a nation which wants a strong government to provide everything at the expense of others. Instead of a generation willing to go to war to save the world, we have a generation which seems to want to beg the world to save them. Instead of raising children and providing for the future, we want to have the government raise and provide for us.
We have taken the dream of the founders and turned it on its ear. We have perverted the original republic and corrupted it to a democracy which feeds off its children instead of protecting them.
That cliff is getting closer and closer and the nation is sliding faster and faster into the abyss.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Socialism--Evil Concealed by Money
My favorite intellectual, the great Dr. Walter Williams, economist extraordinaire and professor of economics at George Mason University, has written one of the most important pieces on Socialism one could ever hope to find.
As a system that is inherently evil, Socialism conceals its sinister objectives and methods with money.
To get our minds stirred to actually think, Dr. Williams entices us with this nifty item:
Read the entire article HERE. Ponder over it slowly, and let it sink in. Let your children and grandchildren read it. Send it to as many as you can think of.
America needs to be reminded of the greatness and superiority of our free enterprise system and the inherent evil embodied by Socialism, which passes itself off as 'right' and 'moral' by its supposed concern for 'helping the unfortunate.'
Taking from one group of citizens to give to another group of citizens is robbery, and the last time I checked, robbery is a crime.
As a system that is inherently evil, Socialism conceals its sinister objectives and methods with money.
To get our minds stirred to actually think, Dr. Williams entices us with this nifty item:
Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.
Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment?
Read the entire article HERE. Ponder over it slowly, and let it sink in. Let your children and grandchildren read it. Send it to as many as you can think of.
America needs to be reminded of the greatness and superiority of our free enterprise system and the inherent evil embodied by Socialism, which passes itself off as 'right' and 'moral' by its supposed concern for 'helping the unfortunate.'
Taking from one group of citizens to give to another group of citizens is robbery, and the last time I checked, robbery is a crime.
Friday, October 03, 2008
How Did These Einsteins Decide?
Polls are showing that the voters who participated in the surveys claim that Barack Obama would be better at handling the economy than John McCain.
How did these Einsteins decide that a complete novice who has NO economic experience and has never even been responsible for a major budget (unlike Governor Palin) could be trusted to deal with the economy?
It just goes to show you that when it comes to money people lose all sense of rationality...
especially if they actually believe that a President has the power single-handedly to screw up their economic fate or bring about a miracle.
This kind of magical thinking understandably was still around during the Great Depression, but one would think that in our enlightened age we would have progressed well beyond such notions of patent nostrums.
How did these Einsteins decide that a complete novice who has NO economic experience and has never even been responsible for a major budget (unlike Governor Palin) could be trusted to deal with the economy?
It just goes to show you that when it comes to money people lose all sense of rationality...
especially if they actually believe that a President has the power single-handedly to screw up their economic fate or bring about a miracle.
This kind of magical thinking understandably was still around during the Great Depression, but one would think that in our enlightened age we would have progressed well beyond such notions of patent nostrums.
Monday, September 22, 2008
'Stubborn Ignorance'
Dr. Walter E. Williams is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a major syndicated columnist, author, and lecturer.
In light of today's massive bailout of Wall Street, which the Congress and the President have been hammering out over the weekend, I thought it fitting to post these words of Dr. Williams on government and economics:
Dr. Williams goes on to state that the mess which Congress has created in the markets is not the taxpayers' doing, yet it is the taxpayers who will surely pay the costs of bailing out Wall Street.
The article is a MUST-read, and it is entitled, 'Stubborn Ignorance.'
In light of today's massive bailout of Wall Street, which the Congress and the President have been hammering out over the weekend, I thought it fitting to post these words of Dr. Williams on government and economics:
Here's what the U.S. Constitution says: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." How many times have we heard politicians, pundits and guardians of our news media say that President Bush cut taxes, or Obama is going to raise taxes? The fact of the matter is that presidents have no power to raise or lower taxes. They can propose tax measures or veto them but it is Congress that has the ultimate power to raise or lower taxes since they can, with a two-thirds vote, override a presidential veto. The same principle applies to spending. Presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Given these plain facts, are politicians, pundits and media people -- who persist in talking about a president cutting or raising taxes, or creating a budget deficit -- ignorant, stupid or deceptive?
Dr. Williams goes on to state that the mess which Congress has created in the markets is not the taxpayers' doing, yet it is the taxpayers who will surely pay the costs of bailing out Wall Street.
The article is a MUST-read, and it is entitled, 'Stubborn Ignorance.'
Dr. Williams does an excellent job in shedding light on the problems the nation faces in the markets and the wrong-headed notion of a massive, taxpayer-funded bailout.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Four Rules of Capitalism
The little-known but all-important rules of Capitalism are as follows:
1. Motivated individuals create wealth by finding a need and filling it. This means you either make something that people want or need, or offer a service that they want or need.
Question Number One--what the hell is 'selfish' about that?
2. Wealth is not a limited commodity but a limitless opportunity to the truly motivated and the truly wise. Only those who believe that government creates wealth by printing paper money believe that wealth is a limited commodity with only so many pieces of the pie available, in spite of the ironic and contradictory fact that government goes on printing more and more money in a faux-wealth attempt to create the illusion that it is 'creating wealth.'
Question Number Two--instead of whining about the money those who create wealth make, why not encourage those who are stuck in dead-end jobs to rise to their potential, believe in themselves, and create more wealth, instead of preying on their class envy to shame the money-makers into giving up their wealth?
3. Once wealth is achieved, even more wealth is created by giving it away voluntarily to help others get started in creating their own wealth. John D. Rockefeller was a miserable billionaire until he stopped worrying, discovered faith, and began systematically giving away his wealth. He only found that he COULD not give it away at all. The more he gave, the more wealthy he became. As soon as he gave what he thought would surely break him, he only found his wealth to be multiplied at least tenfold or one hundred- fold afterward.
Question Number Three--instead of bleeding the wealthy dry with a punitive tax system that punishes the wealthy, why not instead encourage the systematic and voluntary giving away of wealth as a means of creating more wealth, and helping others help themselves in the process?
4. A good Capitalist knows that workers/employees only produce to the degree that they are positively motivated to do so from the top. The fair, positive, and motivational treatment of workers is the best defense against a unionized workforce.
Question Number Four--Since within a healthy, success-based Capitalism there is no such thing as an adversarial relationship between employer and employee, but only poor matchups between jobs and those who are either not skilled enough or motivated enough to successfully work those jobs, why not focus on the team approach rather than the adversarial approach inherent in the Management-Union square-off model?
Matching workers with jobs that utilize their own unique skills and aptitudes will make for a much more positive work environment and help to minimize the common conflicts that occur when the wrong person is working the wrong job. Taking a wrong person at a wrong job and placing him/her at the right job, makes that person the right person for the right job.
In addition, every good Capitalist knows that fairly compensated workers who are treated fairly and with respect make the best workers. By helping them, the Capitalist helps himself and his business. And when the workers help the company and management by helping to create wealth with quality work, workers gain the benefits of a sound, fiscally-solid company.
1. Motivated individuals create wealth by finding a need and filling it. This means you either make something that people want or need, or offer a service that they want or need.
Question Number One--what the hell is 'selfish' about that?
2. Wealth is not a limited commodity but a limitless opportunity to the truly motivated and the truly wise. Only those who believe that government creates wealth by printing paper money believe that wealth is a limited commodity with only so many pieces of the pie available, in spite of the ironic and contradictory fact that government goes on printing more and more money in a faux-wealth attempt to create the illusion that it is 'creating wealth.'
Question Number Two--instead of whining about the money those who create wealth make, why not encourage those who are stuck in dead-end jobs to rise to their potential, believe in themselves, and create more wealth, instead of preying on their class envy to shame the money-makers into giving up their wealth?
3. Once wealth is achieved, even more wealth is created by giving it away voluntarily to help others get started in creating their own wealth. John D. Rockefeller was a miserable billionaire until he stopped worrying, discovered faith, and began systematically giving away his wealth. He only found that he COULD not give it away at all. The more he gave, the more wealthy he became. As soon as he gave what he thought would surely break him, he only found his wealth to be multiplied at least tenfold or one hundred- fold afterward.
Question Number Three--instead of bleeding the wealthy dry with a punitive tax system that punishes the wealthy, why not instead encourage the systematic and voluntary giving away of wealth as a means of creating more wealth, and helping others help themselves in the process?
4. A good Capitalist knows that workers/employees only produce to the degree that they are positively motivated to do so from the top. The fair, positive, and motivational treatment of workers is the best defense against a unionized workforce.
Question Number Four--Since within a healthy, success-based Capitalism there is no such thing as an adversarial relationship between employer and employee, but only poor matchups between jobs and those who are either not skilled enough or motivated enough to successfully work those jobs, why not focus on the team approach rather than the adversarial approach inherent in the Management-Union square-off model?
Matching workers with jobs that utilize their own unique skills and aptitudes will make for a much more positive work environment and help to minimize the common conflicts that occur when the wrong person is working the wrong job. Taking a wrong person at a wrong job and placing him/her at the right job, makes that person the right person for the right job.
In addition, every good Capitalist knows that fairly compensated workers who are treated fairly and with respect make the best workers. By helping them, the Capitalist helps himself and his business. And when the workers help the company and management by helping to create wealth with quality work, workers gain the benefits of a sound, fiscally-solid company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)