Freidrich Hayek

Figuring

So I have an interview on Monday and I am leaving on Vacation next weekend. It is the visit-in-laws, trip\vacation. Tina has a hurt shoulder that is in need of a treatment.

However, because it was a work injury she cannot get it treated or diagnosed. Not until the worker insurance collective says yes or no. Here is my rule, unless your hurt on the job in front of witnesses and need immediate assistance NEVER go with the workman's claim. It just delays and delays and delays treatment and jacks you up on pain meds.

If only Obamacare was working we would have gotten free fast quality healthcare! *cough*

So now we have a trip planned that may or may not interfere with my getting a job. Or Tina getting some treatment.

So here is what my fondest hope: Monday, Tina gets an up or down vote from SAIF, they get her in the MRI that day and interpret the results on Tuesday. Wednesday they figure out some treatment that helps. I nail the interview and get a job offer and they want me to start on July 5th.

Too optimistic?

Why do they do this?

Reuters: "The US economy grew at a slightly slower-than-expected pace in the first quarter, held back by inventories and exports. Resurgent consumer spending offered evidence of a sustainable recovery. Gross domestic product expanded at a 3.2 percent pace, the Commerce Department. Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast GDP, which measures total goods and services output within US borders, growing at a 3.4% rate,"

of note: "Excluding inventories the economy expanded at a 1.6 percent rate following a 1.7 percent pace in the fourth quarter." Take out the census workers and you have a better picture. Recovery? What recovery??

CNN:"While there may be signs of greater strength, the report also detailed some of the headwinds facing the economy. Investment in residential real estate fell nearly 11%, ending a two-quarter rebound in that battered sector and subtracting from overall growth. And commercial real estate investment dropped at a 14% rate."

If residential real estate and commercial real estate are dropping at 11% and 14%, pretty much tells you there is no growth.

Yet this is spun like great news. I wonder why?

CNBC, August 28, 2008. The GDP was 3.3%. The media was reporting it like a recession. "Despite the surprising growth in the US economy in the second quarter, many economists and average Americans aren't convinced that the country has avoided a recession. 'The reason this feels like a recession is from the standpoint of the consumer it basically is,' said David Resler, the chief economist at Nomura Securities. 'Consumer spending is very weak. It isn't going to get any stronger at any time soon, and that's with the benefit of the economic stimulus.' The Commerce Department attributed the unexpected 3.3% jump."

Of course, this is right before the election. So the Commerce Department attributed the unexpected 3.3% jump in the GDP to stronger than expected consumer spending and exports.

So now we've got 3.2%, and, cheerleading! "We're coming back." Seems a bit dishonest that back in 2008 3.3% was DOOOOM!!!

Tax day

Working World

The sun peeked out yesterday and I got a good 20 minutes running among the photons. This brightened my significantly dour mood for the rest of the day.

I enjoy my job, even though DOOM is in the air. The cuts that are coming have everyone feeling down. Getting a second part time job is very tough around this area. I have a couple of prospects that I have been praying about.

On the brighter side, Trevor was able to stop his sinking ship college career. He had achieved a fiscal suspension for poor grades. At my eldest sisters suggestion Tina has me run interference at his collage. It was a little too eye opening. Personally, I cannot conceive how you can get below a B at our community collage. Just showing up and handing something in will get you a C.

We were able to work with the administration to finish up and turn in unfinished assignments. This got him back on the grants list. Part of me is glad he can further his education, part of me moans for my ill spent tax dollars.

Here is a question for you. How can a huge increase in enrollment (students = customers) mean a shortfall in revenue for the collage?? Ugh! We cannot afford to have this many customers! HELP!!!

I hope there is more sunlight today. I could use another soak.

Substantial number of Jobs.

We are turning the corner and the Economy is creating substantial numbers of jobs!

Good news! Thanks, President Obama!

Whats that? We really cannot thank the President or the Government?

Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center has found:

• No statistical correlation between unemployment and how the $862 billion was spent.
• That Democratic districts received one-and-a-half times as many awards as Republican ones.
• An average cost of $286,000 was awarded per job created.

So we can Thank Obama and Congress for a bad investment. Lets just do that in November and 2012...

The Government is causing Obesity!

My buddy Flying Van is hostile towards school lunches. I believe he feels that the government is spending his money incorrectly. A point I am in agreement with.

The idea behind the lunch entitlement is that poor people can not afford to buy food or they care so little about the kids they have they choose not to feed them or they lack the training on how to purchase and prepare food. Seeing how kids are required to go to school, this makes it a logical place to feed these poor starving kids, who must be thinking about their empty stomachs instead of learning reading, writing and arithmetics.

That is to say your brain needs calories to function. Add to that the fact that hunger is a distraction and you have a prime example of the Government aiding education!

One of the primary problems with the above idea that people are starving. No doubt there are people in the US, who cannot access the cornucopia of goodness. If someone is starving the human thing to do is to get them fed, then have them to feed themselves. Finally have them help feed those who are starving.

So holding a parent responsible for providing for their child gets jettisoned. Having a community wanting to help the less fortunate is also jettisoned. And the chance of the child learning to feed themselves is shunted towards letting the government feed you.

Case in point: If you are on food stamps the USDA added incentives and other changes that targets the link between Obesity and Food Stamps with an idea to trim rampant obesity rates among low-income groups. Obesity is not caused by starvation... Right?

So we know that food stamps, from the government, are making poor people fat. Now I read that school lunches are not just making sure that hungry kid has sustenance to insure better performance. No our School lunch program, from the government, are making hungry kids Obese.

I never got\purchased school lunches. My mom made me a sandwich with some fruit and veg for quite a number of years. Sadly, many of those lunches were never eaten. Sometime around third grade I was responsible for my own lunch. Which means I had breakfast and dinner at home and ignored lunch. In HS I was on swim team and had instant breakfast (beats upchucking). Again, if I did have some lunch it was not everyday.

Basically, I was too lazy to make a lunch and too busy to bother with lunch. When I did eat, I made up for the missing meals. I did a pretty good job of burning off any extra calories as well.

Now my daughter needs to have regular intervals of food intake or she gets listless. My nephew would have to eat a certain nutritional balance to avoid nasty headaches.

To my way of thinking. Yes, we need to feed habitually hungry kids. The parents need to be held responsible or face some kind of consequence. Funding a Union does not seem to be covering the basic need.

Fiscal responsibility.

Obama, to much fan-fair, Praised the Pay-as-you-go rule. The media high-fived and there was much rejoicing. There was talk of fiscal responsibility and joyous singing praise of the deficit hawk Obama. The meaning, at first glance, is to make sure any bill is funded prior to passing. That means you cut other programs or raise revenue by some other means. That sounds good right? Not adding to the debt or deficit with any new expense. Pres. Barry says: “the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility.”

The same bill raised the deficit limit to 14.3 Trillion. This is disturbing to anyone who has a household budget. Liberals just shrug and think it is a good thing to borrow that much more money to help the economy. Because nothing makes you richer then being in more debt... [/facepalm]. Also, because they passed PayGo they are now fiscally responsible... Trust in them...

Enter Senator Jim Bunning who stated his intent to block a $10 billion spending bill until it is offset by cuts elsewhere, or payed-for-as-they-go. Which should have gotten him the same high praise from the media right? I mean Pres. Obama got accolades as did the Congress for fiscal responsibility? This is a Republican joining the Democrats! Bi-Partisan support for PayGo! This is winning!

Nope, Jim Bunning is\was being vilified for his mean spirited fiscal responsibility. So as I sit mystified at the MSM and the hypocrisy. The Democrats are going to pass healthcare despite the fact they do not have the votes, nor the ability to under the rules that they operate. Pelosi said this is the most Ethical Congress ever! Which can only be true if your Ethics are situational...

Source:

Bunning’s Spending Hold Makes Him a Cad to TV Nets, Focus on His Supposed Victims

Jim Bunning's fiscal hardball jams GOP

More on the Bunning Benefits Blockade

News Organization of Record

FNC or Fox News gets blasted by liberals as being horribly biased. Further, anyone who watches the show is painted as having a mental handicap at worst. The same groups will fawn over MSNBC, the Huffington Post and Media Matters, laughingly stating these are truth sayers.

Why do people watch the news they watch? One would have to assume it is entertaining and informative and in general reasonable by the given observer.

So which news organization do most people watch? Fox News.

Which only means they are popular, what about Trust in the Information? Fox News again.

Well, that could be due to them catering to conservatives? Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network. 30 percent of Democrats polled said they trusted the network

Does this mean they are "Fair and Balanced" as they logo? Actually it does.

The non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs found only Fox News Offered Obama Historically Normal Scrutiny in 2009.

Lets taking something as politically charged as an election, a biased network would thow in for their ideology right? Apparently so unless your Fox News.

During coverage of the Massachusetts special election, CNN and MSNBC aired only a fraction of the Republican candidate's speech. CNN only ran 26% of Brown's speech 82% of Coakley, while MSNBC aired 37% of Browns 100% of Coakley. Fox News Channel carried 100% of both speeches.

Yeah, well what about Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly? Okay, yes FNC has conservative shows. Those biased shows are doing much better viewer ship then the biased alternatives.

Now for the shocker. I get the bulk of my news from news.google.com. Which is a portal type site for all the news organization. The next place I usually hit is The Telegraph website (it is a United Kingdom site). Next I hit Mother Jones Headlines, then TownHall.com.

If I have some reading time then Newsbusters or Rush Limbaugh. I should note that these sites are a quick read then following the provided source links to re-read.

As far as FNC goes, I occasionally watch O'Reilly. I never have watched an entire show. I will catch the talking heads if there is something breaking in the world or elections that I am watching. Other then that I steer clear of televised news.

So when you hear someone spouting on and name calling the liberal assumption that people in general are stupid. Remember this is the product of intellectual elitism. Do not fall for that.

These folks believe you should live, watch, read, eat, believe, and think like they do.

mo' monie

We are showing a 24% unemployment here in Douglas County. The highest ever.

The official count is 17% with the balance being those no longer looking or have exhausted their unemployment. It is really tough out there. We are doing okay, but Tina is in a frustrating job and mine keeps bleeding hours away (we are looking at another cut next year).

So I am scouring the few want ads and job sites for anything. I have applied to a few positions here and there. Mostly to get a "I'm sorry but..." e-mail back. The companies that do put something out is inundated with applications. Recently a fast food chain locally got 600+ applications for a position.

Figuring out some business that would take off and make a seizable income would be a pretty awesome choice.

How Taxing works

Why is it that anytime there is the suggestion of lower taxes it is viewed as “Helping the rich”?

Suppose that every day, ten men go to the bar, and drank exactly $100 worth of beer among them. If they paid their bill similar to how you pay taxes, the breakdown would be roughly as follows:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank contentedly together in the saloon bar until the barkeep, meaning to be helpful, presented them with a dilemma.

“Gentlemen,” he said, “you’re my best customers. To show you how much I appreciate your patronage, I’d like to give you a discount. From now on, I’ll knock $20 of the total bill for your drinks”.

Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group wanted to carry on splitting their bill in the same way. So, the first four men, those least well off, would continue to enjoy free beer. What of the other six? How could they divide the $20 discount in such a way that everyone got his fair share of the windfall?

They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was. This is how the bill now looked.

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100 per cent saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33 per cent saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28 per cent saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25 per cent saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22 per cent saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16 per cent saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to enjoy free booze. But, as they left the pub, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a buck out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. ”Why should he get $10?” - Referring to the tenth.

“Your right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a buck as well. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got two measly dollars? The system is rigged in favour of the Rich!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. It’s always the worst off who get neglected!”

The nine men dragged the tenth into the carpark and gave beat the crap out of him.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beer without him. But when the bill came, they found that their money didn’t even cover half of it.

The point is that any general tax cut is bound to favor the people paying the most already.

Of course, if your objective is equality rather than prosperity, you can design a fiscal system around the expropriation of the tenth man. But, he is unlikely to hang around waiting for you to apply it.

Oregon Land of the Unemployed and overtaxed!

I started ThinkOregon to shed light on the economic pain that hard-working Oregonians are dealing with each day. My daytime job provides a unique perspective on a fairly broad cross-section of the state's economy, and how hard the recession has hit Oregonians.

Writing in this journal has also broaden my perspective: I now have a deeper appreciation for how economically interconnected we all are. There is truth in "what happens to one of us, happens to all of us."

I received an email from a reader last night that was very much like all the others. I've sanitized the identity of the author and included the bulk of it below. The theme is all too familiar: a dramatic reductions in revenues, layoffs and an underlying despair that, for some reason, this time, just penetrated me to the core.

Most "Vote Yes" supporters will read the email and immediately take out their calculators to figure out how much, if any, this ThinkOregon reader will have to pay if Measures 66 and 67 pass. They'll proclaim with great joy "see he only has to pay $XXX.XX ... isn't that a small price to pay for schools and social services?"

This myopia seems especially grievous to me. It's a gut wrenching exercise in futility to constantly have to point out the blinding glimpse of the obvious: opposition to Measures 66 and 67 have never been about any one tax bill, but rather the overall negative impact on Oregon's fragile economy.

I've never been concerned about the direct costs of Measures 66 and 67 on my own pocketbook. I am, however, deathly afraid of how it will change the spending habits of my customers... and the customers of other small business owners around the state.

The recession took trillions of dollars of spending power out of the economy and now hundreds of thousands of Oregonians on unemployment and food stamps live that reality each and every day.

Why is it so difficult for the "Vote Yes" campaign to see how Oregon businesses are dependent on the patronage of others? The details in the email below aren't nearly as important as the lesson of how we are so utterly dependent upon the spending habits of others.

The "Vote Yes" campaign's mantra of "it's only $150" is utterly misleading as it takes the focus off the economic disaster that will be caused by $733,000,000 in new, permanent and retroactive taxes. More spending power that will be drained from the customers of Oregon small businesses. More customers of Oregon businesses will change their spending patterns. And ultimately, more Oregon small businesses and their employees will suffer.

Yet the "Vote Yes" campaign seems content to push their way to head of the line -- past the jobless, past those hanging on by a thread -- to demand even more.

As we approach the end of this election, Oregonians don't need a calculator or an advanced degree in economics to decide how to vote... we simply need to see the forest for the trees.

Copy pasted from Here.

Blip-Vertisments.

Advertising revenue allows radio and television stations to stay in business. There are quite a few people employed, directly and obliquely because of marketing. There are many different good and bad things associated with the advertising industry.

To my way of thinking advertising is more informational. Hey, this product exists! It may or may not work the way we are showing you. Let the buyer beware. I cannot recall a product I personally purchased as a result of a commercial. Yet, there are quite a few things I have purchased after watching some show on the Food Network. Alton Brown can have that influence.

Connor, being how he is, tends to latch onto products based purely upon the marketing. The products that peek this interest are few and far between. Usually, they are a one shot deal. For the greater part, he just enjoys the humor in the commercials, which lean towards slap stick.

As a consumer savvy society we take a jaundiced view at people who are "selling something." Most of us easily see the fact from fiction.

Enter this commercial

Connor wanted to purchase the above product. Finally it arrived in the stores we frequent. This became rather interesting. There was a concern on his part that his head would blow up. While this was a minor concern, requiring a modicum of re-assurance. I made the tactical error of thinking he was joking and confirmed the possibility. Bad form on my part.

Tina, being the smarter of us two, was able to re-assure. He tried the candy and I am thinking that is pretty much it for the experience. Her careful stating that it was only a commercial was a much more parental approach.

This got me wondering about any outlandish commercials that I believed and sure enough one from my youth was remembered. It had a mom type actress who put some peanuts into a shaker and after a few shakes, it had turned to peanut butter. As we had a shaker and some peanuts around the house, I was promptly disillusioned by conducting the experiment myself.

All in all a parenting 101 lesson for me.

The choosing of the gifts.

Personally I have never understood the point of grabbing something generic to give as a gift, yet I have succumbed time and time again. In the course of my gift giving over the years I have given the bizarre and the sublime.

There is a great emotional rush when you get the right gift for the right person. It would be nice if that was much easier to select. Some kind of oracle of gifts that has a high degree of accuracy.

I have been told that I am difficult to buy gifts for, because there is a lack of things that I want. Does that puts me in the "pass-him-a-fruitcake" position? The best gifts are something someone can use. The worst gifts are something you end up getting back as a later gift.

At one point in my married life I foolishly chastised my, much wiser, wife because she had created a list of things she would have a use for, if given as gifts. Now I am left begging a list and constantly self reminded of what an ass I am for not seeing the simple beauty of said list.

I oft ponder the why's that are the ways of menfolk.

Compassion enough to starve people?

July 2008. New York decides that people are too stupid to make choices around diet and by banning Trans fatty acids they will stop obesity, or some such nonsense. Here you have government forcing people to do something, this is an elimination of freedom.

But Trans Fats are bad right? This is a good thing right? NYC looking out for the little guy, the Government as parents protecting their swaddling children from harm...

Lets take a food kitchen in NYC, one that distributes food to the hungry. There are LOTS of hungry right now, work is scarce, money is scarce. These food kitchens run off of donations, which are also down at the moment. So lets take a hypothetical example: A church decides to have a collection of food for a local shelter. They deliver the food, it is accepted with a Thank you.

Next, the shelter goes through the food and throws away anything with Trans fats. Because it is much better to go hungry or starve then risk obesity?

Oh, BTW this is NOT hypothetical! This is an example of government gone wild and hurting people.

When a small church comes to the Bowery Mission bearing fried chicken with trans fat, unwittingly breaking the law, they’re told “thank you.” Then workers quietly chuck the food, mission director Tom Bastile said.

“It’s always hard for us to do,” Basile said. “We know we have to do it.”

Chasing Corporations Out Of The U.S.

This was a disturbing read for me.

"But it is not just taxation that is chasing corporations out of America. Another top consideration is access to talent. The U.S. now spends more per capita on public education than any other OECD country, but its students test in the bottom decile."

"A culture that turns a blind eye to government failure, but is quick and unrelenting to blame society's ills on business, will naturally and subliminally embrace socialist solutions. The problem is that when one intervention fails, the government attempts to fix its errors with yet more intervention"

As taxes become more punitive for the rich, those who can will relocate to a more hospitable local. A liberal blogger I know, when confronted with this stated that "The rich will not leave the US, they never had it so good."

This is not the world of the 1950's and 1960's. Well educated workforce's are luring businesses to their locations in a siren song of business friendly government. Our administration seems content with pressing forward with the idea that business needs to earn less and pay more to the government and workforce.

Everything has a price. Every choice has repercussions.

In a large group meeting, at a previous employer of mine. One of management was asking the crowd "What is it you want?" in my typical clownish style shouted anonymously "More Pay for less work." Which got a laugh and the management response of "Me too!"

Talk about human nature in action. If you took a paper and pencil out right now and started a list of things that you should be doing around your home. I am pretty sure that list would grow a life of its own as each item conjured up another. If you were to do the same exercise three months later, I bet you will list many of the same things.

As a thought experiment, what if you were to assign some compensation to the top five items on the list, a reward, if you will...

Human nature.

Shopping heard around the world.

Food shopping has come under my dominion. That came hand in hand with meal planning. You would not think the two are mutually exclusive. At one point in time we would look for something to make one night only to discard idea's due to a key ingredient missing. Or there would be a drive to the market prior to execution of supper.

In Europe, I understand, there is a daily shopping that occurs. While there may already be a concept for the weeks food, the bulk of items are shopped that day.

Once upon a time, going shopping would mean going to various shops. Either a Butcher, or Fishmonger, produce, canned goods and sundry items. There are quite a few people who have a nostalgia for that even view it as a superior ideal. My thinking is that idea jaundiced by retrospect. Most of the shops had very limited selection, so your meals would be a tight rotation of meat and potato's or something that was localized.

Personally I like having my two weeks of meals listed with full list of ingredients that I can check my pantry then fill in the blanks at the store.

Is it better or worse then EU or the 'good ol days'?

Having been asked:I do not think that simplistic of a question is appropriate in the complexity or in the assumption that there is an issue.

The Government Can!!!

Calorie information might not influence fast food choices

Calorie information might not influence fast food choices

Lesson in well intentioned interference by the government not yielding any results. Do not get me wrong, I like being able to look up nutritional information.

I tend to avoid places that do not allow me to check them out (especially when I am on a goal to get my weight down). Making an informed choice is a good thing.

Obesity is a problem. Is it a government problem? Is there a government solution? With the government take over of Health Care, you can bet they are going to exert all the control they can. Already we see regulation after regulation on how to make food. Talk about taxing certain "bad" products to stop consumption. Imagine what was done to smoking, but on food choices.

Results never seem to matter with Government. The effort to do "whats right", regardless of the outcome, regardless of what freedoms are lost, regardless of the Damage.

All comes back to the horrid excuse of humanity: "I only had the best of intentions"

**UPDATE: Todays Wall Street Journal

Adventures in Media Bias

What makes for Bad news and or Good news about the recession (depression?). It only matters who is in the White House. If its a Democrat look for the bad news to be shed in the most positive of light! If it is a Republican, it is all bad and going to get worse!

Unemployment is currently at a 26-year-high of 9.7 percent and expected to continue rising. The last president to govern with such high unemployment was President Ronald Reagan.

But in 1982, when unemployment was rising similarly to the way it has in 2009 the network news media were merciless quoting attacks from Democrats, union leaders and the unemployed to attack Reagan's "sadistic" fiscal policies.

2009 was a different story, for a different president. Even though unemployment has shot up from 8.1 percent since February, network reporters looked for "hopeful signs" of an economic turnaround in their jobs report.

The Business & Media Institute just released a Special Report: Networks Flip Flop on Jobs that exposes that double-standard of unemployment coverage from 1982 and 2009.

It is really no wonder that the viewer ship of several seemingly state run media outlets has fallen?