Posts
The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute: "Even though the employers are legally liable for one-half of the tax, they shift the tax onto workers in the form of lower gross wages. Therefore, the Social Security tax burden, 12.4 percent of each worker's gross pay, falls on workers. Half of this burden is hidden from the workers."
"The government, however, thinks that it makes perfect sense to collect $100 of tax revenue, spend the $100, and then declare that it now owes itself $100. This scheme is not limited to Social Security. Currently, federal intragovernmental debt for all programs totals $4.3 trillion."
"The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes."
Monday, June 01, 2009
Let’s Stay Together: On Direct Exchange and the Social Order - Gene Callahan - Mises Institute
Let’s Stay Together: On Direct Exchange and the Social Order - Gene Callahan - Mises Institute: "Even if a country is worse at producing everything than is some other country, it can still net a material gain by specializing in the areas where it has a comparative advantage and trading for other goods."
"We hear that international competition will result in some nations being "winners" and others "losers." We read a headline that some company has "crushed" its competition, or that the U.S. is at "economic war" with Japan or OPEC.
Employed as loose metaphors, such terms are useful. But the analogy does not extend very far. The key difference between a game and the market process is that, in the market, all participants gain from voluntary exchange."
"In a market economy, whether it is domestic or international in scope, everyone's standard of living can rise at once. America has not lost if Japan or China should become wealthier than the U.S. An increase in the standard of living anywhere benefits all people who are economically integrated with the area in question."
"We hear that international competition will result in some nations being "winners" and others "losers." We read a headline that some company has "crushed" its competition, or that the U.S. is at "economic war" with Japan or OPEC.
Employed as loose metaphors, such terms are useful. But the analogy does not extend very far. The key difference between a game and the market process is that, in the market, all participants gain from voluntary exchange."
"In a market economy, whether it is domestic or international in scope, everyone's standard of living can rise at once. America has not lost if Japan or China should become wealthier than the U.S. An increase in the standard of living anywhere benefits all people who are economically integrated with the area in question."
Friday, May 29, 2009
Report Shows Air Quality Improved During Bush Administration - Political News - FOXNews.com
Report Shows Air Quality Improved During Bush Administration - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Carbon monoxide decreased by 39 percent, ozone by 6 percent, and sulfur dioxide by 32 percent.
'Pick any category you want and pollution levels are generally lower than they were seven years ago,' said Steven Hayward, the policy analyst who authored the report, titled 'Index of Leading Environmental Indicators,' for the conservative think tank."
'Pick any category you want and pollution levels are generally lower than they were seven years ago,' said Steven Hayward, the policy analyst who authored the report, titled 'Index of Leading Environmental Indicators,' for the conservative think tank."
Judge: U.S. Can Hold Detainees Indefinitely - Political News - FOXNews.com
Judge: U.S. Can Hold Detainees Indefinitely - Political News - FOXNews.com: "U.S. District Judge John Bates' opinion issued Tuesday night limited the Obama administration's definition of who can be held. But he said Congress in the days after Sept. 11, 2001 gave the president the authority to hold anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the terrorist attacks."
If these are bad people it should be easy to show that to a judge and jury. What do we need to lower our standards of justice?
If these are bad people it should be easy to show that to a judge and jury. What do we need to lower our standards of justice?
Silicon Valley VCs don't want Obama's money, think Google is passe | Webware - CNET
Silicon Valley VCs don't want Obama's money, think Google is passe | Webware - CNET: "Moderator Jason Pontin, a self-described liberal who 'finds our president as dreamy as the next man,' broke party rank and echoed a popular sentiment in the room of wealthy (and traditionally mostly Republican) venture capitalists, to say that the Obama administration's plan to invest in new technologies is doomed to fail. While acknowledging that the administration's heart is in the right place, he pointed out that traditionally, direct investment in technology by governments doesn't work out well. He said the United State's subsidies on ethanol, France's decision to skip the Internet in favor of the state-sponsored Minitel, and Japan's direct investment in supercomputers as it tried to spend its way out of a recession were examples of poor investments. 'Government is a particularly poor judge of new technology,' he said."
Bush: The Information We Gained Saved Lives - Political News - FOXNews.com
Bush: The Information We Gained Saved Lives - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Former President George W. Bush on Thursday defended his decision to allow harsh interrogations on the terror mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying he did what was necessary to prevent what his advisers believed was another imminent attack.
Describing the decision to use waterboarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his capture in March 2003, Bush said the idea was first cleared with his lawyers in order to 'take whatever steps that were necessary to protect' the American public.
'The first thing you do is ask, what's legal? What do the lawyers say is possible?' he said. 'I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, 'I've done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.' I can tell you that the information we got saved lives.'"
Saving lives isn't the only metric. It would have saved lives to not fight the Revolutionary War but people thought that liberty was worth dying.
Describing the decision to use waterboarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his capture in March 2003, Bush said the idea was first cleared with his lawyers in order to 'take whatever steps that were necessary to protect' the American public.
'The first thing you do is ask, what's legal? What do the lawyers say is possible?' he said. 'I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, 'I've done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.' I can tell you that the information we got saved lives.'"
Saving lives isn't the only metric. It would have saved lives to not fight the Revolutionary War but people thought that liberty was worth dying.
The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute
The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute: "The federal government is in debt to itself. Compare this to debt in the private sector. No business declares that it's deep in debt because it loaned itself money. It's the same with families. Parents don't lay awake at night trying to figure out how to repay the money they loaned themselves. The government, however, thinks that it makes perfect sense to collect $100 of tax revenue, spend the $100, and then declare that it now owes itself $100. This scheme is not limited to Social Security. Currently, federal intragovernmental debt for all programs totals $4.3 trillion.
How should we think about this intragovernmental debt? The Treasury department collects $100 in Social Security taxes, the SSA spends $70 on Social Security benefits, and the other $30 goes to, let's say, military spending. Since $30 was collected for Social Security, but spent on the military, the Trust Fund now has $30 of bonds. The bonds are simply promises of future taxes. The feds collected the money for Social Security and now they are going to collect taxes again for Social Security spending. The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes."
How should we think about this intragovernmental debt? The Treasury department collects $100 in Social Security taxes, the SSA spends $70 on Social Security benefits, and the other $30 goes to, let's say, military spending. Since $30 was collected for Social Security, but spent on the military, the Trust Fund now has $30 of bonds. The bonds are simply promises of future taxes. The feds collected the money for Social Security and now they are going to collect taxes again for Social Security spending. The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes."
The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute
The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute: "It may seem that employers are paying half of the Social Security taxes, but that's not the case. Even though the employers are legally liable for one-half of the tax, they shift the tax onto workers in the form of lower gross wages. Therefore, the Social Security tax burden, 12.4 percent of each worker's gross pay, falls on workers. Half of this burden is hidden from the workers."
Study: DRM makes pirates of us all | Inside CNET Labs Podcast - CNET Blogs
Study: DRM makes pirates of us all | Inside CNET Labs Podcast - CNET Blogs: "In the report she notes that when people who are legally attempting to access DRM content (like film lecturers putting together clips from movies for educational purposes) and they hit a DRM restriction, they are driven to instead download DRM-free, illegal copies of the content to get the job done.
Not the most surprising news, and it's another win for those who believe the way DRM is currently implemented hurts more than helps. Now we have a study that says because of DRM restrictions, people are driven to download illegally. I think that's the definition of backfire."
Not the most surprising news, and it's another win for those who believe the way DRM is currently implemented hurts more than helps. Now we have a study that says because of DRM restrictions, people are driven to download illegally. I think that's the definition of backfire."
Friday, May 22, 2009
Salon.com | We wouldn't want to inflame anti-American sentiment
Salon.com | We wouldn't want to inflame anti-American sentiment: "There are many bizarre aspects to Obama's decision to try to suppress evidence of America's detainee abuse, beginning with the newfound willingness of so many people to say: "We want our leaders to suppress information that reflects poorly on what our government does." One would think that it would be impossible to train a citizenry to be grateful to political officials for concealing evidence of government wrongdoing, or to accept the idea that evidence that reflects poorly on the conduct of political leaders should, for that reason alone, be covered-up: "Obama and his military commanders decide when it's best that we're kept in the dark, and I'm thankful when they keep from me things that reflect poorly on my government because I trust them to decide what I should and should not know." It's the fantasy of every political leader to have a citizenry willing to think that way ("I know it's totally unrealistic, but wouldn't it be great if we could actually convince people that it's for their own good when we cover-up evidence of government crimes?").
But what is ultimately even more amazing is the claim that suppressing these photographs is necessary to prevent an inflammation of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world generally and Afghanistan specifically."
"We're currently occupying two Muslim countries. We're killing civilians regularly (as usual) -- with airplanes and unmanned sky robots. We're imprisoning tens of thousands of Muslims with no trial, for years. Our government continues to insist that it has the power to abduct people -- virtually all Muslim -- ship them to Bagram, put them in cages, and keep them there indefinitely with no charges of any kind. We're denying our torture victims any ability to obtain justice for what was done to them by insisting that the way we tortured them is a "state secret" and that we need to "look to the future." We provide Israel with the arms and money used to do things like devastate Gaza. Independent of whether any or all of these policies are justifiable, the extent to which those actions "inflame anti-American sentiment" is impossible to overstate.
And now, the very same people who are doing all of that are claiming that they must suppress evidence of our government's abuse of detainees because to allow the evidence to be seen would "inflame anti-American sentiment." It's not hard to believe that releasing the photos would do so to some extent -- people generally consider it a bad thing to torture and brutally abuse helpless detainees -- but compared to everything else we're doing, the notion that releasing or concealing these photos would make an appreciable difference in terms of how we're perceived in the Muslim world is laughable on its face.
Moreover, isn't it rather obvious that Obama's decision to hide this evidence -- certain to be a prominent news story in the Muslim world, and justifiably so -- will itself inflame anti-American sentiment? It's not exactly a compelling advertisement for the virtues of transparency, honesty and open government. What do you think the impact is when we announce to the world: "What we did is so heinous that we're going to suppress the evidence?" Some Americans might be grateful to Obama for hiding evidence of what we did to detainees, but that is unlikely to be the reaction of people around the world.
If we're actually worried about inflaming anti-American sentiment and endangering our troops, we might want to re-consider whether we should keep doing the things that actually spawn "anti-American sentiment" and put American soldiers in danger. We might, for instance, want to stop invading, bombing and occupying Muslim countries and imprisoning their citizens with no charges by the thousands. But exploiting concerns over "anti-American sentiment" to vest our own government leaders with the power to cover-up evidence of wrongdoing is as incoherent as it is dangerous. Who actually thinks that the solution to anti-American sentiment is to hide evidence of our wrongdoing rather than ceasing the conduct that causes that sentiment in the first place?"
But what is ultimately even more amazing is the claim that suppressing these photographs is necessary to prevent an inflammation of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world generally and Afghanistan specifically."
"We're currently occupying two Muslim countries. We're killing civilians regularly (as usual) -- with airplanes and unmanned sky robots. We're imprisoning tens of thousands of Muslims with no trial, for years. Our government continues to insist that it has the power to abduct people -- virtually all Muslim -- ship them to Bagram, put them in cages, and keep them there indefinitely with no charges of any kind. We're denying our torture victims any ability to obtain justice for what was done to them by insisting that the way we tortured them is a "state secret" and that we need to "look to the future." We provide Israel with the arms and money used to do things like devastate Gaza. Independent of whether any or all of these policies are justifiable, the extent to which those actions "inflame anti-American sentiment" is impossible to overstate.
And now, the very same people who are doing all of that are claiming that they must suppress evidence of our government's abuse of detainees because to allow the evidence to be seen would "inflame anti-American sentiment." It's not hard to believe that releasing the photos would do so to some extent -- people generally consider it a bad thing to torture and brutally abuse helpless detainees -- but compared to everything else we're doing, the notion that releasing or concealing these photos would make an appreciable difference in terms of how we're perceived in the Muslim world is laughable on its face.
Moreover, isn't it rather obvious that Obama's decision to hide this evidence -- certain to be a prominent news story in the Muslim world, and justifiably so -- will itself inflame anti-American sentiment? It's not exactly a compelling advertisement for the virtues of transparency, honesty and open government. What do you think the impact is when we announce to the world: "What we did is so heinous that we're going to suppress the evidence?" Some Americans might be grateful to Obama for hiding evidence of what we did to detainees, but that is unlikely to be the reaction of people around the world.
If we're actually worried about inflaming anti-American sentiment and endangering our troops, we might want to re-consider whether we should keep doing the things that actually spawn "anti-American sentiment" and put American soldiers in danger. We might, for instance, want to stop invading, bombing and occupying Muslim countries and imprisoning their citizens with no charges by the thousands. But exploiting concerns over "anti-American sentiment" to vest our own government leaders with the power to cover-up evidence of wrongdoing is as incoherent as it is dangerous. Who actually thinks that the solution to anti-American sentiment is to hide evidence of our wrongdoing rather than ceasing the conduct that causes that sentiment in the first place?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)