Capitalist Shrugged

Forced Spending the Key to Economic Growth?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:26:00 +0000

I'm getting rather annoyed about I keep hearing on television. Economists keep saying that spending is the key to economic growth and it's how we're going to be pushed out of this recession. I'm not denying that spending is part of the economy, but spending inevitably falls under supply and demand. It naturally gravitates to a balance and I think people are missing that.

The main thing that annoys me is that people like Robert Rice and other economists keep saying if the government cuts taxes, bails out the people, gives refund checks that people would save their money or pay off debt. OH THE TRAGEDY!!!! The horrors of saving your money. Oh no!! Paying off your debt. That's treason!!!

There needs to be a balance between capital and spending. Saving your money, paying off debt, investing all falls under the category of capital. Spending is when you consume. Obviously a business will do better if more people buy, but there needs to be capital too. You can't make loans, without capital. You can't make investments without capital.

Americans have been spending way too much and saving too little. Like, this is an undisputed fact. The fact that saving rates have been growing is good. The fact that people are taking any extra money and paying off their debt is good. If you want a credit crisis to be fixed, let people pay off their debt, let people save money. The more capital a bank has, the more money they can lend.

Obviously the government just wants to spend because that's what the government does best. Government spending will never fix this problem. Money that the government spends comes from someone else. The money leaves the economy and comes to them as tax or the money leaves the economy and comes to them as purchased bonds. There's no net gain, just a distortion between capital and spending.

I'm sure I'll get a typical response like "well what would you do?" It's suddenly implied that something must be done. The market is correcting itself from a distortion and that's what has to happen. No amount of spending will change that. When the correction is finished, the economy will be able to get back to business. Cutting taxes would help, but it's not going to change much. The correction will still need to occur.

The only remedy for this problem... is time.

Are Wind Turbines Good Enough?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:53:00 +0000

I really wanted to mix a little science and politics today. I'm very passionate about this issue because I am an electrical engineer and I did major in power systems. I've had the chance to study, design and work with the "renewable energy" sources that are so hyped by the government. Well, are wind turbines good enough? I would argue no.

Everyone that reads my blog is always suspicious about my motives since I'm a capitalist and obviously wouldn't support such things. With all the subsidies and slimy businesses involved with the government to produce this stuff, it should be enough to make my point, but I'm going to talk to you about the realities.

When I hear Obama talk about solar panels and wind generators, I think he's talking about this new utopia. The talk that we can get off foreign oil and things like this make me laugh.

Wind turbines produce power, but they're just not good enough and here is why...

Space - The amount of space that is required to generate a sufficient amount of power is massive. I don't think people understand the gravity of how much space is required. You need tens if not hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to generate the same amount of power as a single nuclear power plant. This means that huge portions of land (or water) have to be used.

Man Power - Wind turbines require maintenance. The need for millions of people to do all this maintenance will be needed. Let me repeat that... millions of people to do the maintenance.

Doesn't Follow Load - Wind turbines will never become a significant electricity source because they are unable to follow the load of the grid. Nuclear can follow the grid, gas can follow the grid, coal can follow the grid, dams follow the grid. Wind turbines can't because you have to take what you get. If the wind is blowing 30km/hr, that's what you get.

Essentially all power generation (besides the solar panel) is based on a rotors. Wind turbines, nuclear power, dam power, etc is all done through spinning a rotor. This rotor will have magnets on it. When you rotate a magnetic field around wires, you'll generate a current (ie: electricity).

For the sake of efficiency and cost, you want to have less rotors. Rotors are physically moving parts and they will break. Anything that moves will break. Anything that breaks will need to be fixed and undergo maintenance. The less rotors, the better.

That means we need to find a solution where we can produce more power with less revolutions of a rotor.

Nuclear power is by far the superior option. It's safe (despite what ignorant idiots would tell you). A single nuclear plant will have maybe 4 or 8 rotors and power a lot of cities. You'll need hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to produce the same power.

Doing maintenance on 4 to 8 rotors in a single building is a lot cheaper than doing maintenance to 100,000 rotors stretched over 1000's of acres.

----

I'm sure with me making this post that I'll get some very ignorant replies from people telling me I'm wrong. They won't have engineering degrees or know anything about what they're talking about, but I'll get them. Some people have been so indoctrinated by this that they can't accept the fact that it could be bad technology.

Milton Friedman Talks About Greed

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:47:00 +0000

The Similarities of the Religious Right and Communism

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:13:00 +0000

There are two types of people that scare me; those that are really into their religion and those that are into the communist/socialist ideology. People often view the religious right as a polar opposite of communism. We have people on one side voting conservative and people on the other side voting liberal. Both hate each other with a passion and would be offended by being linked to the other group. That's what I'm going to do.

Communism and the religious right both have a philosophy for which they live their lives and view the world. Behind that philosophy comes the concept of values and morality, which both contain. All these beliefs, views, political stances are defined on the values and morality (right and wrong).

At this point you see absolutely no similarities, but it isn't until you look at the core of the philosophies that you can truly understand the nature of both these beasts.

Sacrificing The Individual

Both of these groups believe (at the core) that sacrificing the individual is what needs to be done. Value and morality all come from the sacrifice of the individual.

Communists believe that the individual must sacrifice themselves to the "common good". From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs is derived from self sacrifice. Essentially the "common good" is God and you must sacrifice yourself to God to be a moral person.

The religious right believe that the individual must sacrifice themselves to the "will of God". This is where the concept of "social conservatism" comes from. It has nothing to do with the conservative philosophy itself, it is a branch of religious belief working with government to sacrifice the individual.

Self Sacrifice

Self Sacrifice is the goal of both groups. The communist utopia is a government-less place. There is no government there forcing you to sacrifice yourself to the "common good". For it to work, you must want to do it.

The religious right probably wouldn't fear the communist utopia if they could worship God. It would be their perfect society too. They could sacrifice their well being to other people. They could work for the well being of others, donate money to charities and attack those that dare put their self-interest first.

Self Sacrifice is a feeling created inside people through guilt and fear. A communist would say "how dare you spend your pay check on yourself when people are suffering?" The religious right would say "how dare you spend your pay check on yourself without giving to your fellow man? You'll be going to Hell, soon enough."

Forced Sacrifice

We live in the society of forced sacrifice. Through government, the religious right and communists run their agenda on people. We pay taxes while money is moved from those of ability, to those with needs. Homosexuals are denied the same contractual rights as heterosexuals.

The individual is constantly under assault.

The Morality is Altruism

I'm going to define this as a religion and it does encompass both groups. This is a moral view that the individual must be selfless, must put themselves second to the will of others.

Charity and welfare are the same things, except the religious right like charity and the communists like welfare. Each one defines value and goodness from an individuals ability to sacrifice to another.

...But Isn't Giving Good?

Why is giving good? Most of us accept at face value that giving is good and self sacrifice is a virtue. We're taught that from childhood. Have you actually asked why?

Why is it moral to not consume for yourself and let someone else consume on your labor?

Why is it moral to sacrifice the productive to the unproductive?

Why is it moral to put your self-interest below someone elses?

There is an inherent contradiction in this morality, which makes it moot. It's moral to give to someone else, who will use it for their own self-interest, but if you don't give and use it for your own self-interest - you're sinning (you're greedy, piggish).

I don't expect to get through to communists because from what I understand with interacting with them is that they don't have a concept of morality (right and wrong) or a concept of rights and things of this nature. They sacrificed themselves to the "common good" along time ago.

I don't expect to get through to the religious right either since they've sacrificed themselves to God along time ago.

I just wanted both of you to know that you walk hand-in-hand in the destruction of the individual. And even though you view yourselves as opposites, you actually believe in the same things, just not the same methods.

The Failure of Stimulus

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:13:00 +0000

I thought it was important to talk about the failure of stimulus. I've always been against this, but to really understand, you have to recognize why they believe it to be true. We all believe in things, but often why you believe in it is more important.

There are inherent problems with the philosophy behind this stimulus. You'll be noticing a few very important things. The first is that the average Joe and below (Middle Class to Poor) are the ones that will be stimulating. Secondly, the belief that consumption is the key to stimulus. Lastly, that money can be taken from producers to fund this.

I suppose the whole philosophical backing comes from the idea that consumption is the key to stimulus. I often hear people say that if people would just spend there money, there wouldn't be a problem. Even though spending is part of what makes an economy run, it really isn't a stimulus. I don't like the word stimulus, so I'll just call it by what the objective is, more wealth for the economy. That's essentially what we want.

We all know that if the government taxes people in the economy and gives it to other people to spend, we haven't created new wealth. All we've done is redistributed wealth, not increased it.

The government has choices and it appears like this one is going to take from the productive and give to the middle class and poor. They'll give this through rebate checks, bigger welfare checks, bigger unemployment checks, etc. The idea is that the little guy needs to spend their money to stay afloat and that will force them to use it, instead of saving it or paying off debt.

The real heart of the economy comes from the producers. People like to think that pieces of paper in their wallet are wealth, but they're not. They're only representations of wealth in the economy. Just because the government gives you more paper, doesn't mean the producers have created more wealth.

That's my whole beef.

It is the producers that create the wealth, the jobs, and the standard of living we have. Despite all the anti-capitalism and anti-profit people in Washington, this fact will remain. You can curse them out and hate them all, but they're the ones producing.

What Washington and all the other governments around the world need to do is make it easier for the producers to get to work. That means corporate taxes need to be cut or eliminated. That means capital gains taxes need to be cut or eliminated. Red tape needs to be cut back or eliminated.

If you want people to be working, you need to allow producers to produce because that is the only thing that will ever create a job.

Can You Really Borrow From The Future?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:55:00 +0000

As all my readers should know, I'm against deficit spending of any government in any condition. There is just no reason for it. With that said, people often say that "we're borrowing from the future". I do agree that the future will have to pay it back, but my beef is with borrowing from the future. Can you do it?

You Can't Borrow From The Future

People usually look at money the wrong way and the idea of debt. Money is just paper that is a representation of value. Just because you print more off, doesn't mean the world is more wealthy or that you "borrowed" from the future.

The proper way for the government to deficit spend is by offering the market bonds. What happens is that money leaves the economy and goes to the government to spend. The net change to the economy is zero.

Or if you need a real world example - borrowing money from a friend. If I borrow $100 from you, the net gain to society is zero. I have $100 more, you have a $100 less, so it all balances out.

The main point you need to understand is that government deficit spending requires money to leave the economy in order for things to balance out.

Does the government function this way?

Does the government really take out of the economy what it uses in deficit spending? IE: Does the government issue bonds for trillions of dollars worth of debt? No it doesn't.

Basically the government is just inflating the supply of money. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, money isn't value, but a representation of value. If a marketplace has 100 units of value, no amount of printing money is going to change that value.

Government Spending Can't Stimulate The Economy

There is no way for the government to do it, especially with deficit spending. No amount of money that is created through the banking system in the form of debt is going to change the fact that society has only 100 units of value. All the government can do is tax and redistribute wealth in the market, which leaves a net loss to the marketplace.

Essentially Obama, Bush and many of the governments around the world think that they can spend government money and everyone will be wealthier. Since it is impossible for the government to produce a net gain to the market, it is useless.

The real issue is with deficit spending to achieve this effect. You can't borrow value from the future because all that exists is value of today. When money is inflated, you get inflation. I understand that we don't have any inflation now because we are on a deflationary cycle. Inflation will come in the future, but economic growth will not.

Should Religion Be Taxed?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:12:00 +0000

In today's society, religions don't pay any form of tax. Understanding a little history will show you how we got to this state. When you go back in time, you'll notice that state and religion were one. Governments and countries were created around a central religion. This ended up alienating others and most of them fled to North America to avoid this.

The idea back then was that religion and churches couldn't survive without the government. Soon separation between church and state was created in the United States after the revolution. We learned that religion could in fact survive without the state backing it.

It was still believed that religion was fragile and couldn't handle the burden of tax, so they don't pay it.

Religion Should Pay Taxes

This is my stance, even though I'm not a person that approves of taxes. I do believe that the government should treat everyone and everything as equals, so I don't see how it can view one entity as taxable and an other as no tax, depicted on the basis of a "religious" belief.

1. Religious Status is Vague/Unknown/Esoteric/Undefinable

My first argument for taxing religious institutions is on the very nature of how "religion" is recognized by a government. No one is really sure how it is done.

What makes Christianity more of a religion than a person that believes in the moons?

What separates a religion from a cult?

Can I form a religion?

Do I have to believe in God?

Do bureaucrats have to approve my "religion"?

Does the religion have to believe in mystic things or can it be based on reality?

Can my house be a religious temple and not be taxed?

There are no answers to these questions from a government. Since there isn't one, than it doesn't seem fair to allow a "religion" to not pay taxes since there isn't much on the subject of becoming a recognized religion.

2. It's a subsidy

Subsidy with a lack of taxes is very misunderstood. Lowering or even eliminating taxes is not a subsidy. Lowering or even eliminating taxes while others have to continue paying is a subsidy. There is no debate.

It's no different than living with your parents without paying rent. They're providing the house, food, warmth, electricity, etc and you're not paying. It's a subsidy.

Religion is granted protection with the police, national defense, fire fighters, roads, etc etc etc and it doesn't pay a cent.

3. Religious Agenda

The fact that people believe in a false reality with God(s), pixies, angels and any number of mystical beasts doesn't entitle them to a tax break. The real question is whether government should be promoting specific institutions with the attempt to persuade people. What the government is saying is that religion is important and that the government needs to help people find it by giving it an advantage in the marketplace of ideas?

If you want to "find" something, you do it yourself. We don't need a government promoting the concept of "religion" on the masses. We'd all be better off if the government would step out of the religion debate and stop trying to persuade people. If religion can't survive without a huge government tax break, than maybe religion needs to fail?

----

There are a lot of people that view religion as very charitable institutes and that is reason enough not to tax them. I'm questionable of altruistic intentions of "charity" since people are better off spending their money on themselves. Without creating a huge essay, I'll sum it up like this; Bill Gates as a cut throat greedy profitable business helped more people than philanthropist Bill Gates.

I'm off subject now. When you get down to it, religion isn't charity, but an irrational agenda. Charitable groups have gone to Katrina for example, but would only help you if you listened to their indoctrination. I suppose that prerogative comes with freedom, but that shouldn't warrant them a tax break.

----

Religion has also started to accumulate a lot of assets and real estate making them a very rich "religion". I have no problem with anyone or anything getting rich, but since these religions don't have to pay taxes, they invest their "earnings" and buy up real estate against competitors that have to pay them, this isn't fair. We're not talking about small assets, but hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it. Does it seem fair that competitors with the same balance sheet have to be taxed, while a "Preacher" does not? It isn't fair.

----

To conclude this post, religion doesn't deserve a subsidy in the tax code system. In the marketplace of ideas, you must compete and the government must not tilt the playing field in any one direction. Religion doesn't deserve to be tax free. There is no logical argument for it, unless every other person and business gets to go tax free as well.

Bias And Belief on Global Warming Science

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:36:00 +0000

I thought it was about time that I did a post on global warming because I'm disgusted with what is being done in the name of "science". There are a lot of things missing and I think anyone with their bachelors in any science degree would notice this.

Ordinary people seem to blindly accepted what is being told to them without fully understanding. Scientists are not Gods and what they say doesn't necessarily make it true.

Prior Belief

If a scientist believes global warming is real before they do a test on it, what do you think they will conclude? Global warming is real. If a scientist believes global warming is a farce before they do a test on it, what do you think they will conclude? Global warming is false.

If you have strong beliefs on something before you look at the data, than you're going to rationalize the data to fit your belief and conclude that your belief has been proven. You're going to make assumptions, all studies have assumptions, on what things mean and you'll inevitably conclude to your belief.

A lot of people don't understand this and that is why we're having a hard time getting anywhere. Prevailing belief has always been against progress of knowledge. It doesn't matter if it is religion or people that believed the earth was flat. Due to the massive global warming propaganda machine, people believe global warming is real and they'll do anything to rationalize it.

It's pretty apparent that if it is hot in your town, that's not an observation of "global" warming, yet it seems to be good enough for the likes of Al Gore to use it as data. Yet, if it is cold - you never see the double standard. Belief is a powerful tool in the area of science.

Josh Willis Global Warming Studies

Josh Willis is a NASA scientist that measured ocean temperatures. From 1993 - 2003 they came up with some warming values. From 2003-2006 there was a significant decline in these ocean temperatures. He published his paper and guess what his conclusion was... global warming is causing this. Essentially all the melting ice caps were cooling the water supply.

Okay.

A few years later Josh Willis revised this paper. He ended up removing data he believes to be an error and this ended up showing that the oceans were indeed getting hotter. Guess what his conclusion was... global warming is causing this.

John Willis Rationalization

Does anyone see the inherent bias? Essentially in his mind global warming is real. It didn't matter which way the data was going to come out, he was going to rationalize it.

If the temperatures got colder, it was due to global warming.

If the temperatures got warmer, it was due to global warming.

You can also bet if the temperatures remained the same he would conclude some proof that global warming caused it.

Anyone that is a global warming believer should see the inherent problem with this type of thinking. Belief and bias will always exist, but if you're just going to rationalize your belief no matter what, than how is that science?

The Problem

This is considered the "science" of global warming, but it is apparently obvious that this isn't proof. We don't have people looking for the truth or giving an objective look at things, they are rationalizing a belief.

The Media, Government and Science

You have to watch out when these three entities get together. The media is always looking for the biggest and most sensational stories to run. Scaring people is a great way to keep people at home and watching the television. "We're all going to die" is much better from a media perspective than "everything is alright".

The government has one goal in mind, find problems and offer themselves as a solution. Global warming would be a big problem and would require a huge government presence to combat it.

Lastly, most scientists receive their funding directly or indirectly from the government. The only scientists that do not are engineers (the businessmen of science). Government controls their pay checks, the funding for their studies and can inevitably cut the funding to anyone that contradicts the government.

Environmentalist Ideology

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is a driving ideology behind this. Most people aren't huge fanatic environmentalists, but most have been indoctrinated in some way by it.

The ideology is very simple; the earth/environment/mother nature/ecosystem is more valuable than human beings. This is why every single environmental group has some sort of leader that talks about the need for humans to die off or placing more value over a fish than a human being.

The average person doesn't think this way, but the average person does seem to feel guilty about the way we are. If we cut down trees to build a home, there is guilt. If we pump oil out of the ground to use for our benefit, there is guilt. This all inevitably comes down to one simple belief; man is evil.

You'll notice that most global warming believers are against capitalism, against globalization, against free trade because these are the very things that bring us wealth. Wealth is achieved through using the environment for our benefit, which is inherently evil.

I suppose I'm a bit off track there. My point is that when you have strong beliefs about something, you'll use any data to rationalize the belief. It doesn't matter if you're a creationist that sees Jesus in their french toast or a global warming scientist that is going to prove global warming no matter what the data says.

Can Spending Solve the Economic Crisis?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:30:00 +0000

There seems to be a lot of so called "experts" on the economy that have been calling for the financial bailout, the bailout of the Big 3 and are for this massive government spending called "stimulus". It seems like everyone is panicking and doesn't have the first clue on what to do, so they just want to throw money at the problem.

Ideological Issue

I think a lot of the people that support this "stimulus" assume that as long as people are working, the economy will improve and get better. If you make sure people are making some doe, they'll spend it and the economy will eventually bounce back.

I used to think that way. I remember thinking when I was in high school, "Why don't they have a Jobs Political Party? They'd only have one goal and that's to make sure people can work and make money. As long as people are working and making money, things are great."

There's a problem I see with thinking like this...

Jobs = Value

That is a pretty big assumption and it is something that is incorrect. Just because people are working doesn't mean that it is something of value. Sure they're getting paid, but by who and what? The government. And how does the government get its money? From you.

The best illustration I can give is paying someone to dig a hole and pay someone else to fill it in. Both people are working and making money, but we all know that this isn't a good thing.

Here is how things work in reality...

Production of Goods and Services = Value

It isn't the fact that labor is working that is of value, but it is what is produced that is of value. This is what is inherently lost in the "stimulus" debate.

This "stimulus" is to spend money on infrastructure which happens to be something of value. I agree with that, but there is only so much that is needed. A road is value, but we don't need a road to nowhere. Most roads need the potholes fixed, and hundreds of billions of dollars is more than enough.

Ideally if the government spent just the right money on just the right programs it might not be a bad thing. But we all know what politicians are like, they build bridges to nowhere and fill it with a ton of pork.

Even if the government does it perfect, this still doesn't address the economic pressures facing the private sector. I think it is first to identify the main cause of this economic mess we are in - the government. Despite the attack on "greedy" banks, it is the government that created this by destroying market risk. Fannie and Freddie were the reason the collapse happened. These businesses are government created businesses. The government guaranteed all securities that went through Fannie and Freddie. Since all risk was taken out of the housing market to help people "live the American dream" and own a home, the market lost a sense of risk.

The first and important way to help get the market going again is to step out of the way. The government has to stop distorting risk to push through a political agenda of getting people to buy as many houses as possible.

The second thing that needs to happen is that we need to stop impeding business and investors by cutting taxes. A major cut in corporate taxes means that there is more money to reinvest in their business which results in more hiring. We also need people investing, knowing that the government isn't going to eat into their return.

Lastly, we need to let this run its course.Essentially the market was drunk on the last bull run. When the bubble popped in the housing market, this was essentially the first headache of the hangover. The solution to this problem isn't to get the government spending because that's essentially drinking to get over the hangover. Let it run it's course and things will go back to normal.

Walmart Sucks? Walmart Rocks!

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:36:00 +0000

Nothing annoys me more than the people out there that say Walmart Sucks. It is something that I find to be so stupid and ignorant. When you get right down to it, it isn't really about Walmart, it's an ideological issue with a lot of people. Walmart is the business that people love to hate.

Success is Bad
Being Good is Bad
Helping the Low Income Bad
Making Profits is Bad

I love Walmart. I shop there because they have the best prices. I think it's irresponsible to buy something at another store for more, when it is cheaper at Walmart. That's like handing over your hard earned money to someone that is incompetent. The funny thing about it is that the people that hate Walmart, shop there. Hypocrites all the way.

1. Success is Bad

Walmart is king of retail. They have a ton of stores and they do a ton of business each day. Anytime a person goes to Walmart, it's busy. So many people go to this place and love it. With all the attacks by left wing unions, Walmart is packed all the time. When there are job openings, thousands are applying for them.

Walmart is successful and people don't like that. They'd prefer mom and pop run business to become successful. I think they fail to see that mom and pop would grow their business into a Walmart-like corporation.

2. Being Good is Bad

Just about everything you can find in Walmart is cheaper than what you'll find at other stores. Why? Because Walmart is good at what it does. Other businesses just aren't that good at it.

I'm not sure why people have such a problem with Walmart being so good at what they do. I think they dream of living in a world of businesses that suck at what they do.

3. Helping The Low Income is Bad

Walmart doesn't make yachts for the rich or luxury SUVs for the upper class, it is doing business with low income people in society. They help millions of low income people EVERY SINGLE DAY by keeping prices as low as they can possibly go. Why would anyone buy a $3 tube of tooth paste at a mom and pop business, when Walmart is selling it for a $1.50?

For some reason people think that the only way to help the poor is to redistribute wealth and write them a check. Making it cheaper to live is much better because there is no handouts, there is no cost to tax payers and it encompasses the philosophy of individual responsibility.

4. Making Profits is Bad

I don't understand why profit is a sin or dirty word. Profit is good. Money is good. I bet all those Walmart haters wouldn't turn down a single pay raise at work. It's so easy to condemn Walmart for making billions every year because these people are obviously jealous and believe they are owed some it (entitlement attitude). I don't see any of these narcissistic Walmart haters taking out multibillion dollar loans setting up mega centers all over North America and moving 100's of millions of goods around the world, while selling them at rock bottom prices. I think when you can do all that, you deserve all the rewards.

-----

That's just the ideology part. There is a lot of misconceptions out there that people assume are true. That Walmart is just a horrible beast that needs to be stopped and the self-proclaimed narcissists of the world are the ones to do it.

Walmart Doesn't Destroy Communities

I think people need to screw their heads on straight because this is the stupidest thing I've heard in my life. Walmart builds a building, puts merchandise in it at rock bottom prices and opens its doors. If that "destroys" communities, than every single mom and pop shop is destroying communities.

Walmart has NEVER RUN MOM & POP OUT OF BUSINESS

Do you know why? Walmart doesn't have that power. You know who runs mom and pop out of business? Consumers. People choose to shop where they want and Walmart is obviously more in tuned to what consumers want. That's a fact.

You can call that "destroying communities". I call it "evolution".

-----

For a conclusion, just stop the Walmart hating. Get a hobby and do something else with your time instead of crusading on some liberal cause. Shop where you want and leave it at that.

The Wall Street Bailout is Wrong!

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:30:00 +0000

I thought it was extremely important that I talk about this since the Senate just passed a version of the Wall Street Bailout bill. I think this is so wrong and most American's agree that it is wrong, but yet again politicians ignore it.

I really can't get over the media either. They're pushing this as hard as they can and I really think there is some sort of agenda. I enjoy watching CNBC and I've found myself getting very sick of all the commentary of people on there wanting the bailout. I guess it just shows you that the real capitalists are dead and investors are looking for their version of welfare.

I'm going to tell you why the Wall Street bailout is wrong and I'm going to talk to you about the ideals of capitalism.

Capitalism is a system that isn't designed to be a perfect machine that produces the the best results all the time. It is a machine that does run efficiently and good though. What is happening with the Federal government is an attack on capitalism because there is one vital aspect that they don't get...

Market Justice

Capitalism has a thing called failure built in. Businesses are allowed to fail, it's how the system works. Fanny, Freddy, Bear Stearns, etc all made bad and risky business decisions. They gave mortgages to people that make $40k/year to buy a house that is half a million dollars. It was extremely risky and they assumed if someone defaulted, the house would be still worth half a million dollars, so there really wasn't risk.

Well, they're wrong.

Suddenly now the politicians want to bail out these people's bad decisions. Of course the government will bail them out and they'll blame capitalism as the problem. Yet, they don't allow capitalism to fully work. You can't reward businesses for making bad decisions. That's not how justice works.

What does the bailout do?

All the bailout will do is buy those bad assets from these businesses, so they can take it off their books. Now they'll be healthy (for making a bad decision) and get to continue on profiting.

Tax payers will have to foot the bill and the risk.

The Real Capitalist Solution

The real solution is bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is just the bailout bill without rewarding these businesses and without spending a cent of tax payers money. Bankruptcy court will breakdown the assets and they'll be sold off in auction to responsible businesses.

That's how you fix the mess; you let capitalism finish the job.

A Week in Capitalism [June 21 2008]

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:29:00 +0000

This is another weekly installment of my capitalist posts of the week. It's the time where I share what I liked around the net.

You should check out my post on the entitlement attitude of some people that makes them think they can steal intellectual property.

I've always hated Apple, and a lot of it had to do with the type of customers they had and the fact that they steal to make their products, but Apple wants a Ma Bell monopoly.

Google is working with the Lunar X prize to the first privately funded group that can land a robot of some sorts on the moon and have it transmit information back to earth.

John Stossel calls for ending the drug war, not because he wants to get high, but because he believes in the most important property right, owning your body.

The "Entitlement" Attitude of Pirating

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:00:00 +0000

I enjoy hanging out at Digg to hear the stories. I've just got active again after a year of absence. The site has really gone down in quality. It seems to be over run with Barak Obama and environmental propaganda.

There has been a lot of action internationally with government with regards to beefing up intellectual property rights. The main two on Digg are from Canada and France.

You'd think they'd be digging(voting) for these stories because it protects intellectual property from people that steal. Well, that isn't the case. Everyone there feels entitled to steal music, movies, software and whatever else they can get their hands on. When did this become right? These people feel so entitled to these things. Software, music and movies cost a lot of money to build. Taking it and benefiting it without compensating the owner is stealing. There is no other way around it.

Of course all my comment get buried(Voted down) because I express these views. I hear these common rebuttals and I thought I'd take the time to address them.

It isn't stealing

These people hold up the idea that it isn't stealing if nothing tangible is taken. The idea is that you must deprive another. That is just a poor view. Stealing, is benefiting from another's property or work without permission or compensation.

Just imagine this example: You work two weeks at your job, your boss walks in and says, "I'm not going to pay you. I feel entitled to take your hard work (which isn't tangible) and use it to benefit myself without compensating you."

Just shows you that these people feel entitled to rationalize like that.

Fair Use

Looks like these people caught a term from trademark law. I mentioned Digg on this site. That is fair use. They own it, but I'm using it without their permission. It's a little different than STEALING movies, software and music. You don't have fair use to BENEFIT from it.

My rights are being violated

These people are usually complaining that their rights are being violated by these laws. Well, they're not. For most file sharing, they can figure out who is downloading them based on the fact that they can directly connect to you. As for other smaller forms of digital theft, like newsgroups, they can get warrants for the ISP to remove them.

I think these people get caught up with the idea of "rights". You have rights, but not the right to steal.

-----------------

Just stop downloading pirated intellectual property. It's just not right. People work hard, they invest time and money into these things and they're not looking for some people just to steal it.

The FCC and Cell Phones

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

When the FCC was first created it was supposed to have a few simple tasks. The first was setting industry standards for electronic devices. The second was to handle leasing out frequencies to businesses like radio stations. Somewhere along the way, they decided they had more power to do other things like censorship and regulate.

Cell phones have a very simple thing they do; if you sign up for a contract for a designated period of time and break it, you will have to pay a standard fee. This is based on the concept that they gave you a free or cheap phone, as long as you got service with them for a specific point in time. If you break that contract, you had to pay a standard $200 fee.

The FCC wants to change that and make a more "fair" system of repaying back. Unfortunately, the government doesn't have know what the concept of fair is and will ultimately help people that break contracts.

Here are the facts: Consenting adults are allowed to enter into contracts. Cell phone companies clearly spell it out that you will get this "new" phone as long as you keep the service for a predetermined amount of time. If you, the consenting adult, choose to break the contract than you have every reason to pay a fee. The FCC doesn't need to come in a act as your parents.

The FCC rides on top of "good intentions", but here is what is going to happen. People that act dishonest and break contract will get off easy. Good people that follow their contract and use a cell phone service will have to make up the difference. It is just what will happen. "Good intentions" usually degrade to helping the bad and hurting the good.

I hear people whine when I tell them this. They say, "All cell phone companies want a contract. There's no way of escaping it." It's pretty obvious these people are not looking hard enough. You can find plenty at Walmart. You can even buy them off of eBay and get no contract service.

Capitalist News For The Week [June 14 2008]

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

Time for all the great capitalist goodies for this week that I've seen. I first would like to start out and share my article on the Anti-Knowledge Dogma which seems to think knowledge isn't possible.

Did you hear? With all the "evil" pollution and "evil" privatized health care in America, the life expectancy just keeps rising. Life expectancy surpasses 78 years.

Canada is currently proposing stronger property rights over intellectual property which can be distributed over the internet. Strong copyright laws in Canada.

Idiot, Lou Dobbs, may run for Governor of New Jersey.

Are you smart? Well, apparently the government doesn't want you to be a police officer.

The thought police are alive and active in Canada. As much as I disagree with this persons thoughts, I do believe he has a right to express them.

Do Environmentalists Know Science?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

For some reason in society, people take environmentalists seriously. Science is the core of what makes our society so prosperous. They inevitably try to use science (or science talk) to get points across.

Look at that guy above. What comes to mind? No job, lives with mom, high and takes arts courses at his local university. As an engineer, I never seen anyone like this in any of the classes I took. I only saw them when I took the occasional arts course.

Why do people listen to them? I think deep down people feel guilty for owning two cars and having a home. Either way, people feel guilty for enjoying the luxuries created by man for man. But that is enough digressing, back to science.

A local environmentalist is up at the podium giving a speech about acid rain, he chants loudly with immense passion in his voice, "We need to lower the PH level to zero!!" The crowd erupts in screams of support. Everyone chants, but no one realized this person just called for rain that is like battery acid.

If you're familiar with Penn & Teller's show on Showtime, you'd know that they tried to demonstrate how stupid environmentalists are. They decided to see how many people they could get to sign a petition for banning water. They called water by it's chemical name, dihydrogen monoxide, and gave accurate information about water. They'd say, "they use it on crops", "it's in our drinking water", "excessive amounts can cause you to vomit and even die". All true about water.

Every single environmentalist they asked at a rally to save the rain forest signed the petition. Not a single person questioned, objected or had the scientific intellect to figure it out. These people allied to this idea this antiman movement naturally.

Why do people feel the need to demonize the greatness of man?

I think that is a good question. We we supposed to live in the woods along with the animals?

The Anti-Knowledge Dogma

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:09:00 +0000

I was having a discussion with some people online about global warming. I'm not a believer in it due to having a fundamental understanding of science and heat transfer. I often wonder why people believe in it, since there is absolutely no proof.

I usually have the discussion and I work it down to the believers to present the "proof" that CO2 causes warming. I always knew environmentalists were dogmatic in the first place, but this really took the cake, in science there is no way to make proofs, but it's happening and I should just take his word for it.

Yes, this is by far the craziest thing I've ever heard. The only "science" you can't make proofs in is "soft" sciences, like psychology. The reason is because you can't measure anything. There really isn't nothing to measure on people to know if they're a serial killer or not.

I just hate the anti-knowledge people. It's so degrading to the minds of men that made this world great. I wonder if they get upset when they drive over a bridge thinking that there is no proof on why it stands up. What a joke.

Science was my only refuge from the dogma crowd and it seems they're trying to infest this place too. I think they need to go back to their religion, believe in their pixies and angels, and let the real minds work on that "proof" you hate so much.

The Oil Bubble Will Pop

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

I know it sucks having to pay for gas at this time, but I think it is apparently obvious that things are heading into a bubble. Should the price of oil be up? Yes. We have more demand than ever before, but this isn't prices going up with respect to demand, it's going up by speculators.

Prices are determined by speculators and they're really getting creative with thought. The oil market is really out of place and no one can seem to find equilibrium. That is fine, the market will find it. It will suck in the mean time, but it will go back to a normal level.

We are in a bubble because things are just acting weird. It's going up very high for minor issues and this is what is going to happen. POP!

I saw this over at the CNN website, so at least the mainstream media is at least starting to get it.

Dangerous Environmentalism: The Anti-Man Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

Most people view environmentalism as great caring people, that are looking out for "mother nature". I call it dangerous environmentalism.

The fact of the matter is that environmentalism is a movement of damning mankind. Think about it. Anything that is done that adds benefit and a higher standard of living to people is "evil". They view nature, in itself, as value. I guess this where I differ because trees, rocks, rivers, etc aren't really of value to me. It's when these things are used that value comes to people.

This would be the simple ideological differences:

Environmentalist: Using the Earth is evil.
Humanist: The Earth is here for us to use to better ourselves, just as every other animal uses it to better themselves.

Environmentalist: Stopping starvation only hurts the Earth.
Humanist: Saving lives is a good thing.

Environmentalist: Putting anything into the air is wrong.
Humanist: Putting a little pollution into the air has allowed us to more than double our lifespan, increase our standard of living and help more people than ever before.

You maybe thinking I'm being a little one sided with these comments. Dangerous environmentalism isn't what really exists. It's just something in my corrupt mind. Well, I thought it would be fair to allow the to environmentalists speak for themselves.

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer. —Paul Ehrlich

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. —John Davis, editor of Earth First!

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world. —John Shuttleworth

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. —John Davis, editor of Earth First!

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation. —Lyall Watson, The Financial Times

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem. —Lamont Cole

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them. —Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. —Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

The last one is the most scary one. I wonder if Dave Forman would volunteer to be at the top of the killing list? Probably not.

This is a very scary ideology. It is an anti-man movement. Everything that makes our life great, is hated. It's scary because people follow these people, even after they make these comments.

We shouldn't be ashamed of what makes our lives great. We shouldn't look at vehicles as "evil" tools destroying the Earth. We should look at them as the tools created by the mind to allow us to prosper and grow. Never feel guilty for living your life, like an environmentalist would like you to. Be proud to be a human.

Saturday Capitalist Links [June 7 2008]

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

I thought this could be a fun little thing to do. Instead of doing a regular post on Saturdays, I'll post some of the best articles I seen around related to capitalism and individual rights.

1. Only in France could the idea of nationalizing line dancing float. If you want to dance, you're going to need to get a diploma.

2. When are YOU going to die from global warming? Find out here.

3. What you need to know about "just" prices.

4. There is a one minute case against global warming.

5. Is Obama a Marxist?

Chavez Follows The 1984 Manifesto

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:00:00 +0000

Chavez has recently used his powers to turn Venezuela into a spy on your neighbors country. This comes right out of George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four, which is Orwell's take on the communist Soviet Union.

For me, this isn't news. I knew this guy was a power crazy communist that doesn't care about free markets or individual rights, but the alarming part is that there are people that support him. I remember talking to a friend about how Chavez nationalized all the oil fields in the country. He order the army to come in and steal the property of oil companies. He thought it was great. Those oil companies "deserved" it. Than Chavez went a little further and started going after private television stations that present opposing views. I'm told by my friend, "he's making the country a better place. It is necessary because of the problems caused by American involvement in the past." The story goes on with more horrible news coming out about Chavez.

I realized something, people that claim to be compassionate, good people, that care about the "little guy", don't care about freedom. They don't care about rights, or due process. They don't have a problem with dictators as long as their man is in power.

This sickens me that people hold this ideal. I don't support dictators that put my policies in place. I don't support governments that take away my rights and run my life the way I want. Do people have a moral constitution anymore? A principle they live by? I don't know anymore.

Chavez is not a good man. He's seizing more power each day and turning Valenzuela into another poverty ridden socialist state. He appears to be extremely paranoid, probably because everyone in the country wants him dead. He now has the police and intelligent agencies coercing people to spy on their neighbors. Don't want to do it? You goto jail for 4 years.

No one should follow such people. He has tried to take control of this country through a military coup, he's taking over everything, imposing restrictions on people's rights. If this isn't the definition of a megalomaniac, I don't know what is.

Danny Glover, it is time to divorce Chavez.

What is Intellectual Property?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:00:00 +0000

Intellectual property is something I thought about for many years. I had many different views on it and I keep coming to one conclusion. It's a lot easier when you look at this from a moral stand point of right and wrong.

What is intellectual property?

Intellectual property are rights granted to people over ideas and other intangible objects. These are best known as patents and copyrights. The whole basis boils down to the fact that the hard work of someone, even though it is intangible, is the property of the creator.

I ran into a lot of conflict with my views on this because I use to think of ways of efficiency instead of right and wrong.

The Moral View

The moral view is very simple. The hard work a person, even though it is intangible (like music or software), is the owner of the creator. If a person wants to benefit from this creation, they need to compensate the creator of it. As simple as that. That's the only thing that is right.

You just can't morally steal someone's hard work. Most of us don't deal with intellectual property in our life, but if we were making a living off of it we would be furious if someone stole our hard work and used it to their benefit without fairly compensating us.

I see websites on the internet that have Hollywood movie exchanges. That is illegal and bad enough, but these sites make a profit from their sites by charging memberships. They are making money off the hard work of movie makers. Even though I think most of the movies are horrible, but these people spend millions of dollars on this and people are just ripping them off. That is wrong.

Criticism

The criticism comes down to efficiency for the consumer. Think of a business created the cure for cancer. They would essentially own that cure. That in itself isn't a good or bad thing. The main concern is that people can monopolize ideas.

Personally, I think they have every right to monopolize it. They created it. If a business created a cure for cancer they would of spent years and millions of dollars developing it. They would of spent even more money on testing it. If it hit the shelves for people to take home and cure themselves, there would be a "looter" there waiting to steal the product and start selling it. They didn't spend the millions to develop and test it. They just stole it, and that is wrong.

What is intellectual property? It is rights granted over intangible ideas such as music, software and ideas. The correct way of looking at this is from a moral point of view. Ideas, even though they are not tangible, are still the property of the creator. We can't have people sitting around looking to steal people's ideas. That is my take on intellectual property.

I'm Pro Flat Tax

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:00:00 +0000

I'm a person that likes simplicity, so that is why I'm pro flat tax. I have taxes taken off my pay check before I even get my money, but I still have to file taxes. I don't enjoy filling out 9 pages of information on taxes I've already paid, but this is how the government works.

To show you the magnitude of how complex our progressive tax system is, think of the amount of jobs people have to just do government tax work. Just think of every business out there that has 1, 2 or 3 payroll employees working full time. Think of how big a department of a large corporation has working, just on payroll. That doesn't even include taxes. Huge sums of people have these jobs that produce absolutely no benefit to the world. All they do is go through the red tape of government.

Think of how many good paying jobs that would be created for people if we had a simple tax system. These jobs would now be more important to the economy because they add benefit to people, not just wasting time following government guidelines.

I'm pro flat tax because it is so simple. You pay a flat percentage of what you make, no matter what. Let's say it's a 10% flat tax. If you make $500 for a week of work, you pay a $50 tax. If you make $1000 for a week of work, you pay a $100 tax. If you make $10,000 for a week of work, you pay a $1000 tax. Do you really need an army of payroll specialists to handle this? No. Most of this work can be done easily with a computer.

Where I live the taxes are pretty progressive in some ways. If you work your 40hrs a week, everything is fine. You pay taxes and that's that, but if you get the idea of working overtime, it's just not worth it. The government just taxes so much of it, it isn't worth your time. Most people would tell you if they work overtime, they would like to pay the same amount of taxes on that money.

Think of how beneficial it is for business. Businesses are put in the situation of looking for profits, but are limited by tax brackets. If your profit is $1 over a bracket, you might pay $100,000 more in taxes, if you made $2 less in profit for the year. Businesses are encouraged to get in under certain tax brackets by coming up with as many write offs that they can. If you just have a simple flat tax, you can eliminate a lot of the more stupid write offs and loop holes making a more fair market environment for business.

I'm also pro flat tax because of the added benefit and standard of living it brings. People in today's society are trained to look at profits as a bad thing, but profits are a good thing. Profits bring prosperity. Businesses now will be more driven to produce because they know they won't have to pay higher rates of taxes by being "too big". They'll work harder, they'll get more investment and hire more people.

The benefits of flat tax are huge and numerous. Most people against it think that it favors the rich. I'm not sure how that works since everyone is treated equally and the rich do end up paying more taxes. I think people have this ideal that the rich "owe them", when they really don't. This is why I'm pro flat tax.

The Pros And Cons of Capitalism

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:42:00 +0000

I thought I'd do a post on the pros and cons of capitalism. I think it is pretty apparent that capitalism is the best social system in existence and the only one that follows good moral values, such as individual freedom.

The Pros of Capitalism

You are free to make your own choices (right or wrong) in the market place.
You own your life and the means to produce for your life.
You can choose to run your own business or get a job with ease of government regulation.
As a consumer, you get the highest quality of products for the cheapest prices.
As a consumer, you get the highest variety of the types of goods and services you can purchase.
You are free to innovate and invent without the government getting in your way.
You don't have to pay taxes beyond that of the basics to protect your rights (police, courts, national defense, etc).
You vote with your dollars. If you don't like a particular store, you can always shop somewhere else.
You have the right to own property, which comes with the right to develop it as you choose.
You have the right to earn as much money as you want without having to answer to the government.
Capitalism has given the highest standards of living this earth has ever seen and no other system has ever been able to do this
Capitalism recognizes your right to pursuit of life, liberty and property.

The Cons of Capitalism

There really isn't any cons for capitalism. The only cons come from people that want to be able to tell people what to do or how to live their life. In capitalism, people are allowed to make their own choices, good or bad, and this seems to bother some that think they have the right to tell others how to live their life.

As a capitalist I feel unfortunate that people do sleep on the streets, but I can't feel bad for people that make the conscious choice to stick a needle full of heroine into their veins. Everyone is given the same level playing field and everyone can play.

This is what I think the pros and cons of capitalism are. It is the best social system ever devised and I (as well as you) owe capitalism for the great standard of living that we have.

Wikipedia: A Flawed Ideal

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:34:00 +0000

Wikipedia isn't as great as people think. It becomes apparently obvious when you start to edit, what it really means and what it really stands for.

The ideals of Wikipedia isn't to present the facts freely to people to view. It doesn't have any desire for that.

Wikipedia: Where Fact is Based on Popularity

People just seem to miss out that it isn't trying to get the "facts" it is trying to get the most popular ideas on there. Facts are undisputed pieces of information, but that isn't what gets put on Wikipedia all the time. Anything that is remotely controversial, political, religious, etc becomes a distortion of public opinion rather than fact.

I think this is driving us back to the old collective thoughts of the "flat earth". Just look at controversial topics that seem to be dominated by popular opinion rather than fact. Environmentalism is a key topic where everything is distorted to a "liberal bias". I hate using that term, but it's true. There is no factual information on environmental pages, just anti-Mankind dogma.

I was recently editing a page on a "fiction character" in a television show I watch. This show is more controversial since it deals with more adult themes. I added in something about the character being molested. I was immediately banned for vandalism for one week. Here is the diction from the administrator that gave it: appears to be vandalism. See how it says "appears". It doesn't say anything about facts, it just boils down to opinion.

No one should support such a flawed ideal. When it comes to basic things like tables and golf balls it is pretty accurate, but when it comes to anything where there is a little more emotion, it turns into a popularity contest.

Flawed ideals should be ostracized, not supported.