by Jimmy
Because mothers are too STUPID to properly care for their children. Because doctors are too STUPID to know how and what medicines to prescribe for their patients. Because parents are too STUPID to know what car seat or toy is safe for their kids. Because we're too STUPID to know how to handle a firearm. Because we're too STUPID to plan for our own retirement. Because parents are too STUPID to know what school to send their kids to. Because we are too STUPID to know what kind of food to eat. Because we are too STUPID to think about our own health care, Because we are so STUPID that we continue driving cars that use too much gas. We're so STUPID that we need a label on an iron warning us not to use it on clothes that we are currently wearing. And we're too STUPID to pay for good art and culture. Quite simply we are too STUPID to take care of ourselves, our parents, our children, our future and our environment.
However, as STUPID as we are, we are able to elect all knowing, all seeing, all caring geniuses who will guide us through the minefield of life on our way to Nirvanatopia. These are the same savants who have saddled us with an ever increasing debt of over $30,000 for every man, woman and child (even those yet unborn) here in the United States. They build bridges to nowhere. They have managed the dollar so well that it is worth about 5% of what it was 80 years ago. The penny postcard now costs 26¢. They have lost the war on poverty, the war on drugs and the Vietnam war. They have made it a felony for a 10 year old to even draw a picture of a gun. They can secretly open all mail, listen in on all conversations and examine all our records for our own protection. They send hordes of petty bureaucrats into our homes and businesses to pester us with a never ending array of rules and regulations, and whose response to any question is a robotic, "I'm just doin' my job." And if you don't like it, they will send an armored SWAT team to your house, bust down your fucking door, tear out your windows and blast your STUPID ass away. You STUPID motherfucker.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
The Banking "crisis"
On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Curtis wrote to Jimmy:
What' with this big WW banking bailout that's happening right now to the tune of 40 billion/month?
I think they mean a one time charge or infusion of $40 billion. Not every month. $40 billion per month is about 1/2 trillion dollars each year. That doesn't sound right.
Normally, in a truly free market, this would work itself out (self correct) in a matter of months. The problem is that the U.S. gov has decided to wade in and try to forestall the correction.
The banks made some bad loans and they are having to take some write downs on their assets (the collateral behind those loans was not worth what they loaned). Some of the loans had escalator clauses that kicked in after the "teaser" period was up. It's like those credit card checks you get in the mail that say 0% for 6 months and then the rate goes up to the usual 14% to 24%. Ideally on the CC loans, you pay them off before the 6 months are up. Unfortunately a bunch of folks don't.
The same with the housing mortgages. The banks offered 100% financing at a teaser rate of, say, 4% for the first 3 years, and then the rate would go to 6.9% or whatever. Two things happened. #1, here were a bunch of folks who bought a house, not for themselves, but to resell. Call them speculators, call them investors. It doesn't matter. They got the 100% low interest rate mortgage figuring that they could make a profit by selling the house within the 3 year time span. The problem is that too many people decided to do the same thing, and suddenly (#2) there was a housing glut with too many sellers and not enough buyers. Prices dropped. Now these "investors" are owning a house which is not only not worth the financed amount, but they are also looking at a huge rise in their monthly payment. Can't sell and can't pay. It's the "can't pay" that's a problem.
Naturally some legitimate homebuyers/owners with less than sterling credit got scooped up in the net. These are the hard luck stories that Congress is attempting to address. They will fail. They will only prolong the pain as they did during the depression of the 30's.
A possible larger problem is that real investors do not like uncertainty. They are not looking for capital appreciation. Only a reasonable, steady, predictable return. Foreign governments hold over $2 trillion of U.S. Treasury debt on the presumption that the dollar will pretty much hold its value relative to their own currencies. If they see massive volatility in the U.S. markets, they may just decide to dump their dollar reserves. In the past three (maybe 4) years the dollar has gone from .88 per Euro to $1.44 per Euro. That's a 75% increase. Gold has increased about a third. This is not good news in such a short time. When you dump dollars, you can only do it by buying something else that you perceive as more stable. The price of those things will rise relative to the dollar as more and more people jump the dollar ship.
For every seller of dollars there must be a buyer, so how do you get the seller to part with his non dollar asset in exchange for dollars. Why, you offer him more, of course. This is called a price increase, or, if the Fed has expanded the money supply, (it has) then it's called inflation. People will deal with gradual, sneaky inflation. They will panic when it's obvious and rapid.
Jimmy is buying gold on Monday.
Jimmy is buying gold on Monday.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
My Sister Loved "Sicko"
Dear Edith,
Thanks for the stuff on "Sicko."
I have not yet seen the movie, but I did go to the website to check out his remedy which is a complete government take over of the health system. As noted in the Clarence Page opinion piece, everybody knows that the current state of health care in America is a disaster for many people. What's interesting is that the proposed solutions can only result in more misery. "There is no problem so severe that the government cannot make it worse." (Quote by jimmydoane, 2006)
Here is MM's 3 step "solution."
1. "Every resident of the United States must have free, universal health care for life."
As P J O'rourke once noted, "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free." Of course it won't be free; it will be at no charge to the recipient at that moment. Big difference.
2. "All health insurance companies must be abolished."
There is only one way government can ever "succeed" at anything, and that is by outlawing the competition. Take gambling. The only reason anybody plays the state lottery is that you would be arrested and thrown in jail if you tried to set up your own competing enterprise. Even when the government tries to "crowd out" the competition by providing a service at no charge, some private entities survive and prosper. For instance, private schools and private parks.
3. "Pharmaceutical companies must be strictly regulated like a public utility."
Who will regulate the regulators? Regulation by another name is price control. Price controls have never, in the entire course of recorded human history, ever worked.
Health care is what economists call "a scarce resource." It's should be obvious on its face that not everybody can get all the health care wanted or even needed. I mean that if healthcare was like air, you wouldn't need any program, government or otherwise, for its distribution. There are only a limited number of hearts, livers and lungs available for transplant. There are "orphan" diseases that affect only a few, but require millions of dollars for treatment. There are very expensive "end of life" procedures that simply don't make sense for the last day, week or even month of existence. So rationing must and will occur.
Rationing can occur in one of two ways: price or availability. With a government run health system, price is thrown out the window. That leaves availability. Who decides who gets what? You can bet that there will be lengthy, tedious procedures to determine who is worthy, emphasis on lengthy. Just as "Justice delayed is justice denied," health care delayed is even worse. It's often a death sentence. Furthermore you can bet that the politically well connected will not be in the same line as the rest of us.
Here is Jimmy Doane's rule of government malfunction: "Where there is a line or a waiting list, you will find government intervention and failure."
What is stunning about MM's proposed "solution" is that it is the precise opposite of a free market solution which would work faster, better and be fairer. It's as if in order to stop a burglary problem, you outlawed private gun ownership and gave everybody a special number to call in the event of a break in. Oh, wait. We already do that.
Your Loving Brother
Thanks for the stuff on "Sicko."
I have not yet seen the movie, but I did go to the website to check out his remedy which is a complete government take over of the health system. As noted in the Clarence Page opinion piece, everybody knows that the current state of health care in America is a disaster for many people. What's interesting is that the proposed solutions can only result in more misery. "There is no problem so severe that the government cannot make it worse." (Quote by jimmydoane, 2006)
Here is MM's 3 step "solution."
1. "Every resident of the United States must have free, universal health care for life."
As P J O'rourke once noted, "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free." Of course it won't be free; it will be at no charge to the recipient at that moment. Big difference.
2. "All health insurance companies must be abolished."
There is only one way government can ever "succeed" at anything, and that is by outlawing the competition. Take gambling. The only reason anybody plays the state lottery is that you would be arrested and thrown in jail if you tried to set up your own competing enterprise. Even when the government tries to "crowd out" the competition by providing a service at no charge, some private entities survive and prosper. For instance, private schools and private parks.
3. "Pharmaceutical companies must be strictly regulated like a public utility."
Who will regulate the regulators? Regulation by another name is price control. Price controls have never, in the entire course of recorded human history, ever worked.
Health care is what economists call "a scarce resource." It's should be obvious on its face that not everybody can get all the health care wanted or even needed. I mean that if healthcare was like air, you wouldn't need any program, government or otherwise, for its distribution. There are only a limited number of hearts, livers and lungs available for transplant. There are "orphan" diseases that affect only a few, but require millions of dollars for treatment. There are very expensive "end of life" procedures that simply don't make sense for the last day, week or even month of existence. So rationing must and will occur.
Rationing can occur in one of two ways: price or availability. With a government run health system, price is thrown out the window. That leaves availability. Who decides who gets what? You can bet that there will be lengthy, tedious procedures to determine who is worthy, emphasis on lengthy. Just as "Justice delayed is justice denied," health care delayed is even worse. It's often a death sentence. Furthermore you can bet that the politically well connected will not be in the same line as the rest of us.
Here is Jimmy Doane's rule of government malfunction: "Where there is a line or a waiting list, you will find government intervention and failure."
What is stunning about MM's proposed "solution" is that it is the precise opposite of a free market solution which would work faster, better and be fairer. It's as if in order to stop a burglary problem, you outlawed private gun ownership and gave everybody a special number to call in the event of a break in. Oh, wait. We already do that.
Your Loving Brother
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Why I am voting Libertarian
None of the Above
If the Republicans win, it will probably be by a whisker. They will spend money in a manner that will make the last six years look like a model of fiscal restraint in an effort to maintain control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency in 2008. The Democrats will go along for two reasons. One is that they like nothing better than spending money. Secondly they will be able to blame the wildly excessive spending on the Republican president.
If the Democrats win, it will probably be by a whisker. They will spend money in a way that will make a drunken sailor on shore leave seem like the epitome budgetary parsimony. They will blame George Bush for the resulting rise in the deficit.
Some are worried that if the Democrats win, there will be two vacancies on the Supreme Court that will be filled by activist, liberal judges because current sitting liberals are waiting for Democrat control. Probably true.
If the Republicans win, however, the current liberals will just wait until 2008 (actually 2009) to resign because, if the Republicans win in 2006, Hillary will win in 2008 as a backlash for the massive Republican spending between 2006 and 2008. In any event, we are doomed to having a more liberal court.
As an aside, this supposedly conservative court has made two rulings that defy any logic. Obviously one is the Kelo decision. Even though some states have passed some laws to try to ameliorate this whacko decision, there should have been a message from the Court that eminent domain is not for private use.
The other decision was Raich (sp?) which gave the Court the perfect opportunity to overturn Wickerd. Wickerd vs. Filburn (early 1943), passed in the heat of the second world war, gave Congress the power to declare virtually any action by anybody as interstate commerce and to regulate it accordingly. That particular decision certainly ranks in the top 5 as one that institutionalized the loss of freedom in America.
So the only real alternative is to vote Libertarian to send a message to whoever wins that they do not have a mandate to go hog wild on spending. Voting Libertarian is a way of voting for "none of the above." A pox on both your houses.
I am voting for one Republican, Katherine Harris, because she is a very capable lady and she is in favor of the Fair Tax.
Peace,
"jimmy"
If the Republicans win, it will probably be by a whisker. They will spend money in a manner that will make the last six years look like a model of fiscal restraint in an effort to maintain control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency in 2008. The Democrats will go along for two reasons. One is that they like nothing better than spending money. Secondly they will be able to blame the wildly excessive spending on the Republican president.
If the Democrats win, it will probably be by a whisker. They will spend money in a way that will make a drunken sailor on shore leave seem like the epitome budgetary parsimony. They will blame George Bush for the resulting rise in the deficit.
Some are worried that if the Democrats win, there will be two vacancies on the Supreme Court that will be filled by activist, liberal judges because current sitting liberals are waiting for Democrat control. Probably true.
If the Republicans win, however, the current liberals will just wait until 2008 (actually 2009) to resign because, if the Republicans win in 2006, Hillary will win in 2008 as a backlash for the massive Republican spending between 2006 and 2008. In any event, we are doomed to having a more liberal court.
As an aside, this supposedly conservative court has made two rulings that defy any logic. Obviously one is the Kelo decision. Even though some states have passed some laws to try to ameliorate this whacko decision, there should have been a message from the Court that eminent domain is not for private use.
The other decision was Raich (sp?) which gave the Court the perfect opportunity to overturn Wickerd. Wickerd vs. Filburn (early 1943), passed in the heat of the second world war, gave Congress the power to declare virtually any action by anybody as interstate commerce and to regulate it accordingly. That particular decision certainly ranks in the top 5 as one that institutionalized the loss of freedom in America.
So the only real alternative is to vote Libertarian to send a message to whoever wins that they do not have a mandate to go hog wild on spending. Voting Libertarian is a way of voting for "none of the above." A pox on both your houses.
I am voting for one Republican, Katherine Harris, because she is a very capable lady and she is in favor of the Fair Tax.
Peace,
"jimmy"
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Apologies for no show
Missed Last Saturday
Sorry guys. Last Saturday was a bust, so now show was recorded. Jimmy is finally going to have to figure out how to run his own studio.
As a consolation prize I will post here the letter I wrote this evening to the local County Commission.
Dear Commissioners,
First of all let me thank you for listening to me when I spoke the other evening, during citizen comment time, on the very general subject of County spending. I won't call what you do a thankless job, but it is certainly one that you could not pay me some $5,000 each month to do. In the alloted three minutes I had to skip some points, so I would like to take this opportunity to "revise and expand" my remarks. Most of you know me, and you know not to take anything here personally.
Recently Ron Cunningham over at the Sun asked readers to respond to the question, "Is spending by Alachua County government out of control?" I invite (dare?) the commissioners to go online and read the responses. Furthermore, while there, you might give us your views on why government spending is not out of control. You can even do this anonymously without any sign-up, although I don't know why you would want to.
So, is Alachua County government spending out of control? This is a rhetorical question, right?
Oh, there is the perfunctory genuflecting in front of the cross of fiscal restraint every election year, but otherwise it's the same old, same old. Even windfall revenues such as we had this year are not enough. Plans are afoot to garner yet more revenue.
Spending is out of control because there is no control. Asking the County Commission to control its spending is a little like asking a college kid to control his spending when he has his parents' credit card. The difference here is that the college kid doesn't have a gun. He can't force his parents to give him money.
You, on the other hand do have a gun. You are the only ones legally empowered to collect money at the point of a gun, and with that comes an awesome responsibility.
There are two questions that I never hear asked by commissioners during budget or new laws and regulations hearings.
One is, "What happens if this plan doesn't work? What if our assumptions turn out to be wrong? What is my fallback position? What is my plan 'B'?"
The second is, "Am I prepared to send the sheriff with full authorization to use any force necessary to collect the monies for this program?"
The answer to the first question is all too often to do more of the same. Make the program more inclusive and intrusive. "Tighten it up" is a phrase we often hear.
The answer to the second question must be "Yes" or else the program would not pass muster.
The reasons for overspending by the county are systemic and endemic to all governments at all levels. The commissars want to be liked and to do good things for the people. There are always unmet needs and wants. There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Once started, programs not only become entitlements, but their "needs" increase every year. Job security requires the invention of a never-ending stream of crises that only the government can cure by extracting yet more revenue from the populace.
The beauty of our system is that the government can identify a new "crisis", say healthcare, put it on an out-of-the-way election day, convince 10% of the electorate into voting for it, and, voila!, a new program that requires everybody to pony up millions. This is known in government parlance as a mandate.
Our leaders sometimes forget that government is the overhead of society and they themselves are responsible for reigning in spending. There is no automatic check as there is in the private sector. Bill Gates may have an operating system monopoly, but he will never send one of his goons to my front door to force me to buy his product. One the other hand, government failure is rarely punished. Heck, half the time it's rewarded with a new plaque for services well done.
Private companies react rapidly to deteriorating market conditions by cutting back. When governments screw up, we don't get so much as an "oops" out them. Governments often react not by cutting back, but by instituting larger, more comprehensive programs.
Look, we citizens have given you the exclusive right to legally collect our money, by force if necessary, for purposes you deem essential. Nobody else, however rich or powerful, has that privilege. All we ask in return is that you don't abuse that very special franchise by spending our money on questionable items.
Think of it this way. We have a bank where we keep our money, and we have said to you, come on in with your loaded guns and take what you need. We know you need the guns because there are always some recalcitrant folks who object to your taking any money. But we trust you to take from us only what is absolutely essential.
Can you honestly say that every dollar you take is absolutely essential to the benefit of the entire community?
Sincerely,
"jimmy"
Sorry guys. Last Saturday was a bust, so now show was recorded. Jimmy is finally going to have to figure out how to run his own studio.
As a consolation prize I will post here the letter I wrote this evening to the local County Commission.
Dear Commissioners,
First of all let me thank you for listening to me when I spoke the other evening, during citizen comment time, on the very general subject of County spending. I won't call what you do a thankless job, but it is certainly one that you could not pay me some $5,000 each month to do. In the alloted three minutes I had to skip some points, so I would like to take this opportunity to "revise and expand" my remarks. Most of you know me, and you know not to take anything here personally.
Recently Ron Cunningham over at the Sun asked readers to respond to the question, "Is spending by Alachua County government out of control?" I invite (dare?) the commissioners to go online and read the responses. Furthermore, while there, you might give us your views on why government spending is not out of control. You can even do this anonymously without any sign-up, although I don't know why you would want to.
So, is Alachua County government spending out of control? This is a rhetorical question, right?
Oh, there is the perfunctory genuflecting in front of the cross of fiscal restraint every election year, but otherwise it's the same old, same old. Even windfall revenues such as we had this year are not enough. Plans are afoot to garner yet more revenue.
Spending is out of control because there is no control. Asking the County Commission to control its spending is a little like asking a college kid to control his spending when he has his parents' credit card. The difference here is that the college kid doesn't have a gun. He can't force his parents to give him money.
You, on the other hand do have a gun. You are the only ones legally empowered to collect money at the point of a gun, and with that comes an awesome responsibility.
There are two questions that I never hear asked by commissioners during budget or new laws and regulations hearings.
One is, "What happens if this plan doesn't work? What if our assumptions turn out to be wrong? What is my fallback position? What is my plan 'B'?"
The second is, "Am I prepared to send the sheriff with full authorization to use any force necessary to collect the monies for this program?"
The answer to the first question is all too often to do more of the same. Make the program more inclusive and intrusive. "Tighten it up" is a phrase we often hear.
The answer to the second question must be "Yes" or else the program would not pass muster.
The reasons for overspending by the county are systemic and endemic to all governments at all levels. The commissars want to be liked and to do good things for the people. There are always unmet needs and wants. There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Once started, programs not only become entitlements, but their "needs" increase every year. Job security requires the invention of a never-ending stream of crises that only the government can cure by extracting yet more revenue from the populace.
The beauty of our system is that the government can identify a new "crisis", say healthcare, put it on an out-of-the-way election day, convince 10% of the electorate into voting for it, and, voila!, a new program that requires everybody to pony up millions. This is known in government parlance as a mandate.
Our leaders sometimes forget that government is the overhead of society and they themselves are responsible for reigning in spending. There is no automatic check as there is in the private sector. Bill Gates may have an operating system monopoly, but he will never send one of his goons to my front door to force me to buy his product. One the other hand, government failure is rarely punished. Heck, half the time it's rewarded with a new plaque for services well done.
Private companies react rapidly to deteriorating market conditions by cutting back. When governments screw up, we don't get so much as an "oops" out them. Governments often react not by cutting back, but by instituting larger, more comprehensive programs.
Look, we citizens have given you the exclusive right to legally collect our money, by force if necessary, for purposes you deem essential. Nobody else, however rich or powerful, has that privilege. All we ask in return is that you don't abuse that very special franchise by spending our money on questionable items.
Think of it this way. We have a bank where we keep our money, and we have said to you, come on in with your loaded guns and take what you need. We know you need the guns because there are always some recalcitrant folks who object to your taking any money. But we trust you to take from us only what is absolutely essential.
Can you honestly say that every dollar you take is absolutely essential to the benefit of the entire community?
Sincerely,
"jimmy"
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Gainesville Sun - flack
Socialist Sun flacks for the county
The Gainesville Sun is a willing accomplice to local Socialist tendancies with the notable exception of Jake Fuller. I know that the Sun must feel they are doing a bang-up job, because they do receive some flack from the commissions. It's that old story in the media, "If both sides complain, then I must be right in the middle."
Nope, sorry, you don't get off that easy. Recently headlines have touted the reduction in the millage rate as a reduction in taxes. This in the face of an increase in the budget of virtually every governmental agency with more on the way. So where is all this extra money coming from? (That is a rhetorical question).
A recent example of the Sun flacking for the County. Headline: Buildings to Benefit County's Economy. And then there is the sidebar with a picture of Randall Reid, the county manager saying, "There is a good economic benefit to government spending."
Now Cindy (Swirko) is a long time reporter for the Sun, so I don't understand why she didn't ask the question(s) that immediately spring to my mind.
"Say there, Mr. Reid, isn't the $108 million taxpayer money that would have been spent anyway? I mean if you take a dollar from the private sector and spend it in the government sector, isn't the economic "benefit" just a wash? In fact isn't it a bit of a loss since we have to pay the staff to collect and disperse these monies?"
"And, Mr. Reid, where are the workers going to come from? It's not like we have any unemployment here in Alachua County, so are you not going to have to bid away the local workers from private construction by offering them more money? Won't that increase the cost of private construction thus raising the price of housing?"
"And, Mr. Reid, won't this ripple throughout the local economy by leaving less money for the citizenry to buy cars, flat screen TV's and Christmas presents?"
"And, Mr. Reid, will there not be more folks who simply not be able to afford the higher price of housing, and then will not the county step in and "solve" this problem by taking yet more taxpayer dollars and subsidizing housing for the newly poor?"
The Gainesville Sun is a willing accomplice to local Socialist tendancies with the notable exception of Jake Fuller. I know that the Sun must feel they are doing a bang-up job, because they do receive some flack from the commissions. It's that old story in the media, "If both sides complain, then I must be right in the middle."
Nope, sorry, you don't get off that easy. Recently headlines have touted the reduction in the millage rate as a reduction in taxes. This in the face of an increase in the budget of virtually every governmental agency with more on the way. So where is all this extra money coming from? (That is a rhetorical question).
A recent example of the Sun flacking for the County. Headline: Buildings to Benefit County's Economy. And then there is the sidebar with a picture of Randall Reid, the county manager saying, "There is a good economic benefit to government spending."
Now Cindy (Swirko) is a long time reporter for the Sun, so I don't understand why she didn't ask the question(s) that immediately spring to my mind.
"Say there, Mr. Reid, isn't the $108 million taxpayer money that would have been spent anyway? I mean if you take a dollar from the private sector and spend it in the government sector, isn't the economic "benefit" just a wash? In fact isn't it a bit of a loss since we have to pay the staff to collect and disperse these monies?"
"And, Mr. Reid, where are the workers going to come from? It's not like we have any unemployment here in Alachua County, so are you not going to have to bid away the local workers from private construction by offering them more money? Won't that increase the cost of private construction thus raising the price of housing?"
"And, Mr. Reid, won't this ripple throughout the local economy by leaving less money for the citizenry to buy cars, flat screen TV's and Christmas presents?"
"And, Mr. Reid, will there not be more folks who simply not be able to afford the higher price of housing, and then will not the county step in and "solve" this problem by taking yet more taxpayer dollars and subsidizing housing for the newly poor?"
Thursday, September 21, 2006
800 Number for the show
Some of you may know that we are "live" on the internet at ztlk.com on Saturdays from 3 until 5 P.M. We now have an 800 number you can call in during the show to ask questions or make (very short) comments. It's 1-866-955-4669 aka 866-95-JIMMY.
During other times, please feel free to call the number and leave voicemail. I check it several times each day.
During other times, please feel free to call the number and leave voicemail. I check it several times each day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
