Delusions of grandeur

by Sean, crossposted from Hiding in the Backwaters:

“You evil capitalist; making wealth for other people.”

I heard that sarcastic comment the other day walking down the halls of the building where I rent office space. It never ceases to amaze me how willingly delusional some people are.

First off, let’s establish that wealth is a relative term. Compared to most of the world’s population, I’m sure that I appear as stupidly wealthy as Bill Gates appears to me. When someone makes such a ludicrous statement, it makes me wonder what their definition of wealth is.

Can we agree that giving someone a job is not the same as creating wealth? I’ve heard the same fellow is planning on hiring three people to man phones and make cold calls to pitch whatever product he has to sell. Is he really thinking about creating wealth for his employees? Is going to split the profits equally four ways? I kinda doubt it. He undoubtedly plans to keep most of the profits and pay is employees a meager wage for growing his business.

I’ve always understood capitalism to be about one thing: making money for #1. If capitalism is about creating wealth for others, how do you explain that 80% of the wealth in the U.S. is held by 20% of the population? (sociology.ucsc.edu) Have you ever pondered the term “trickle down economics?” Why not “downpour economics?” Or even “stream down economics?” Because capitalism and trickle down economics work just like a dam on a river. Sure, some of the water continues to flow down stream, but most of it stays behind the dam.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not really opposed to capitalism. I don’t even disparage the ridiculously wealthy—at least not very often. I just think you should call it what it is. If you want to adhere to capitalistic principles and state that capitalism allows all people the same theoretical opportunity to amass wealth, fine. But don’t for a minute delude yourself into believing that makes you a philanthropist.

Calling in the truth

Great piece at Cadillac Tight reviewing the real GOP record on the economy.

If you want to look at the cold, hard record, the nation has done better economically under Democratic presidents than Republicans in recent years.

Them’s the facts.

More heartburn from ineffective governance and planning

MinnPost has the goods:

The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s recently released statewide transportation plan on policies and highway investments flags a startlingly large $50 billion gap between dollars available for roads and bridges and the $65 billion required to meet state needs in those areas over the next 20 years.

This deals with transportation infrastructure, but across the board – social services, education, environmental protection… Minnesota is falling apart.  The Republican administration has been hell bent on turning us into a northern Arkansas, and they’re well on track.

The cost is too high

The Reagan Recession, 2008 style

Interesting review of the natural consequences of policies attractive to Reagan Democrats.

The reality is that the Reagan Democrats revolted against the very system that had protected and fostered them, and in two directions. The metro map here shows one direction: the raw slagging of unemployment in the Upper Mid-West, Coastal areas, and the Atlantic Coast south is clear. The other direction is seen, ironically, in a long belt of low unemployment that runs along the Great Plains. How is low unemployment a problem? In itself, it is not. However, these are areas where it is virtually impossible to be unemployed; and so rather than stay and remain unemployed (there being no government programs to keep them there) young people pour out of these empty stretches, which include parts of the North-East such as rural Maine. This youth drain is a deep political and social issue in these areas.

California dreaming, of meltdown

So California voters aren’t interested in the state remaining solvent.

Curious.  John Cole observes:

You are a state DOMINATED by Democrats, yet plague us all with the craziest Republicans in the country in Congress, you are lagging behind Iowa in terms of civil rights, and you consistently refuse to outvote the smattering of fanatical anti-tax Republicans who show up to vote down any ballot initiative to balance your budget. Can anyone give me reasons I should feel sympathy?

He shouldn’t.

Megan McArdle notes:

There is a surprisingly sizeable blogger contingent arguing that we have to bail them out because however regrettable the events that lead here, we now have no choice. But actually, we do have a choice: we could let them go bankrupt. And we probably should.

When a state is hell bent on being ungovernable, maybe we should just all sit back and watch for a while?  Eventually things will get bad enough they write a new state Constitution and fix things.

Not adding up

A great review of the Honda Insight from the Times UK.

In a Prius the electric motor can, though almost never does, power the car on its own. In the Honda the electric motor is designed to “assist” the petrol engine, providing more get-up-and-go when the need arises. The net result is this: in a Prius the transformation from electricity to petrol is subtle. In the Honda there are all sorts of jerks and clunks.

And for what? For sure, you could get 60 or more mpg if you were careful. And that’s not bad for a spacious five-door hatchback. But for the same money

you could have a Golf diesel, which

will be even more economical. And hasn’t been built out of rice paper to keep costs down.

…

I cannot see how making a car with two motors costs the same in terms of resources as making a car with one.

The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually. It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume. And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka. And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he’s doing the world a favour.

Why doesn’t he just buy a Range Rover, which is made from local components, just down the road? No, really — weird-beards buy locally produced meat and vegetables for eco-reasons. So why not apply the same logic to cars?

At this point you will probably dismiss what I’m saying as the rantings of a petrolhead, and think that I have my head in the sand.

That’s not true. While I have yet to be convinced that man’s 3% contribution to the planet’s greenhouse gases affects the climate, I do recognise that oil is a finite resource and that as it becomes more scarce, the political ramifications could well be dire. I therefore absolutely accept the urgent need for alternative fuels.

But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt genes of the smug and the foolish.

I’ve taken just a few bits from a significantly longer piece that you really owe it to yourself to read in full.

Hat tip to Timothy Sandefur

The cost of poverty

A good piece in WaPo explaining how those with less end up paying more.

The cost of budget cuts

An effective part two.

Debunking the “revolt”

A real tax issue

As early as Monday the US Congress may take up debate a new bill proposing standards and establishing a framework for internet sales to be taxed.

Read about it here.

And get your congressmen and senators on board in opposition to taxing internet sales.

If a little-known but influential alliance of state politicians, large retailers, and tax collectors have their way, the days of tax-free Internet shopping may be nearly over.

A bill expected to be introduced in the U.S. Congress as early as Monday would rewrite the ground rules for mail order and Internet sales by eliminating what its supporters view as a “loophole” that, in many cases, allows Americans to shop over the Internet without paying sales taxes.

Currently, Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state vendors aren’t always required to pay sales taxes at the time of purchase. Californians buying books from Amazon.com or cameras from Manhattan’s B&H Photo, for example, won’t pay sales taxes at checkout time that they would if shopping at a local mall.

“We will have the bill ready for introduction by next Monday,” said Neal Osten of the National Conference of State Legislatures. “We finalized the language and now we’re working out the remaining issues and adding some new provisions at the request of various stakeholders.”

Pelosi speaks truth

Deserting like rats

from satirist Andy Borowitz:

As the federal government moves to institute salary caps for Wall Street executives, an increasing number of assholes are seeking employment elsewhere, a study confirmed today.

According to the report commissioned by the University of Minnesota’s School of Business, at a time when the economy needs experienced hands at the tiller, some of the financial world’s best-trained dickwads are fleeing the ship.

And if the trend continues, the study warns, Wall Street could soon be facing a “douchebag drain” as top buttholes migrate to other countries and industries.

“There is no question that our company is losing some of its most valued assholes,” says Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis.  “I have tried to convince them to stay, but how do you reason with them?  After all, they’re assholes.”

At Blarney O’Malley’s, a popular watering hole catering to Wall Street traders, prominent assholes congregated after work last week to ponder the career options facing douchcicles today.

“When I graduated from B-school in ‘98, you could write your own ticket,” said Dirk Bendelson, a veteran asshole from Stamford, Connecticut.  “It was a glorious time to be a mofo.”

Mr. Bendelson said he was considering using his Wall Street experience to pursue a career that would not be subject to regulation or salary caps: “I’m thinking of becoming a pirate.”

Elsewhere, the IRS announced that April 15 is the tax-filing deadline for all Americans not in the president’s Cabinet.

GOP criticizes Democrats for wanting to address the economic crisis, fails to see self parody

By now many people have reviewed Eric Cantor’s idiocy on the Democratic economic proposals.

“As far as Rush, Rush has got ideas. He’s got following. He believes in the conservative principles that many of us believe in –- of lower taxes, of making sure that we turn back towards a focus on entrepreneurialism in this country, to promoting innovation and not stamping that out by over-reacting, if you will, which this town often does, to crisis.”

John at Americablog raises a couple of good points.  First off, saying that the Democrats are wrong to prioritize the economy probably isn’t “on message” for what the American public wants to hear these days.  Second, after all the whining about Rush Limbaugh not being the leader of the national GOP, it looks more than a little foolish for the number two guy in the House to keep referring to “Rush, Rush.”

But there’s something else here that merits some attention.  The Republicans speak of turning back toward a focus on entrepreneurialism in the country.

Perhaps a primer is in order on what “entrepreneur” means because it ties in to what has happened with the economy, the banking and Wall Street crashes, etc.

To be an entrepreneur typically means to employ some creative force and initiate, but even more so it means to manage and organize and most of all TO ASSUME RISK.

You understand the difference between entrepreneurship and what has been taking place in our large corporations and especially in banking, insurance and finance?  Patrons of privilege play with other people’s money as if it were a parlor game, assuming no risk to themselves of the consequences.  Stock goes up?  You get a salary and bonus.  Stock goes down?  You get salary and a bonus.  You make indefensible business decisions?  You get a salary and a bonus.  You drive a sector into bankruptcy and crisis?  You get a bonus.

These are the people the GOP has been protecting, and these activities are about as far from the entrepreneurial backbone of the economy as you can be.  Privatizing the profits and socializing the losses is not sustainable as government policy, and should never be attempted to begin with.

Obama needs to stick to his guns and the reconcilliation process is a wonderful tool wherever applicable, but it’s just as important to control the debate.  The Democrats can not afford to let the GOP redefine such essential terms and the principles they represent to cloud the history and distract people from what has really occurred.

Analyzing the social contract

Interesting bit by Josh Marshall

We’ve been in the midst of the reporting on the AIG bonus story and related high-octane blow-ups over compensation and the behavior of key players in the finance sector. And we’ve seen a non-trivial number of complaints that we’re sensationalizing this or that story or engaging in ‘cheap’ populism. Beside the reporting innards of the story, though, what interests me about this meta-story is the way it shows the implicit social contract under deep strain and some people operating totally outside of it without realizing it at all.