What a strange controversy over Obama's comments. AS is usually the case, the more controversial, the more he is right.
First off, we do have a tightly managed economy, which is why it is in such a mess. It is no secret that the powers that be through taxes and regulations and subsidies picks winners and losers. How does anyone think Solyndra managed to burn through billions? Or Washington Mutual? Or Google?
Here is Peggy Noonan mocking Obama:
"How about that Michael Phelps? But let's remember he didn't win all those medals, someone else did. After all, he and I swam in public pools, built by state employees using tax dollars. He got training from the USOC, and ate food grown by the Department of Agriculture. He should play fair and share his medals with people like me, who can barely keep my head above water, let alone swim."
Our economy is producing a deficit. That means we are all necessarily losing money. If you are actually turning a profit, it is because you are being subsidized somehow. This website costs me nothing, but it costs someone something, somewhere.
When I sell a book, I ship it media rate, which is subsidized, so you pay some of my customers costs. When I teach a class, taxpayers are footing the bill for the school infrastructure that I get at far below cost to the taxpayers. You bet my "success" is based on others.
Obama was fed that line about "you didn't build it" by his handlers after it was used by a senatorial candidate, Elizabeth Warren. It was a loser for her. So why have Obama use it afterwards? Why introduce 'class warfare' now, except to put Obama further back.
And note Romney just failed overseas, and he'll be running against Hillary, who has been working overseas the last four years.
One reason to have Obama speak these lines is because when the next president introduces a 90% tax it will be implemented based on the premise "you didn't earn it." Obama is just taking the heat for what will come anyway. But not to worry. A 90% tax rate will hurt employees and landlords. Bring in lots of money. Employers don't care how much tax employees pay. And the self-employed will not pay those taxes, since federal taxes are voluntary. We'll see a boom in small business activity and hiring is there is a 90% tax, so bring it on, it is better than nothing, and it will pay down the debt. Or not. it could.
But this misses the point. No taxes would be necessary in a free market. All of those Government services would be provisioned better cheaper. Yes, you subsidize my shipping of books, but if there was no post office the freight would be much lower because it does not cost as much as the post office charges to deliver goods. Schools paid too much for too much so when you subsidize my on campus activity, you are paying for overhead that was never necessary to begin with.
The government merely arrogates unto itself at a very high cost, and putting the taxpayers on the hook, for all and sundry things. The state had much to do with the creation of the internet as we know it, and what a mess that is. 92% of traffic is spam, porn is force fed to 14 year old boys to the detriment of girls for generations, at a very high cost even if we pay nothing. Someone is paying.
In a free market the internet would be everyone bouncing messages off of any one of the millions of meteors coming at us each minute, with computer controlled probablity making communication impossible to snoop. Anyone can do it. Step one: get a FCC radio operators permit. How come? Literally the sky is the limit for this cheap and plentiful message distribution system. But you see, the state has hijacked it. Only they can use it. You see, the powers that be cannot possibly track who is saying what when your computer predicts the next thousand meteors and catches one to send your message. No way to snoop on that.
If you use this safe, secure, costless unlimited means to send messages without permission, expect drones.
Sure Michael Phelps and Bill Gates never built anything others did not pay for. That is not the question. The question is how come so many people are forbidden to contribute to society?
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
First off, we do have a tightly managed economy, which is why it is in such a mess. It is no secret that the powers that be through taxes and regulations and subsidies picks winners and losers. How does anyone think Solyndra managed to burn through billions? Or Washington Mutual? Or Google?
Here is Peggy Noonan mocking Obama:
"How about that Michael Phelps? But let's remember he didn't win all those medals, someone else did. After all, he and I swam in public pools, built by state employees using tax dollars. He got training from the USOC, and ate food grown by the Department of Agriculture. He should play fair and share his medals with people like me, who can barely keep my head above water, let alone swim."
Well, Peggy, Phelps does get lots of help because those facilities he trains in cost a lot, and the prizes he can win are huge, but not available universally. Taxpayers foot the bill for community pools, Phelps takes home hundreds of millions in endorsements. Notice the Olympics, if the training is capital intensive, USA and the west tend to dominate. If it is not capital intensive, lesser countries dominate.
How come azerbaijan dominates judo? But not swimming.
There is an anaology to USA's wars: if we go against high tech wars we do well. But if it is actually fighting against foot soldiers we lose. See Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Our economy is producing a deficit. That means we are all necessarily losing money. If you are actually turning a profit, it is because you are being subsidized somehow. This website costs me nothing, but it costs someone something, somewhere.
When I sell a book, I ship it media rate, which is subsidized, so you pay some of my customers costs. When I teach a class, taxpayers are footing the bill for the school infrastructure that I get at far below cost to the taxpayers. You bet my "success" is based on others.
Obama was fed that line about "you didn't build it" by his handlers after it was used by a senatorial candidate, Elizabeth Warren. It was a loser for her. So why have Obama use it afterwards? Why introduce 'class warfare' now, except to put Obama further back.
And note Romney just failed overseas, and he'll be running against Hillary, who has been working overseas the last four years.
One reason to have Obama speak these lines is because when the next president introduces a 90% tax it will be implemented based on the premise "you didn't earn it." Obama is just taking the heat for what will come anyway. But not to worry. A 90% tax rate will hurt employees and landlords. Bring in lots of money. Employers don't care how much tax employees pay. And the self-employed will not pay those taxes, since federal taxes are voluntary. We'll see a boom in small business activity and hiring is there is a 90% tax, so bring it on, it is better than nothing, and it will pay down the debt. Or not. it could.
But this misses the point. No taxes would be necessary in a free market. All of those Government services would be provisioned better cheaper. Yes, you subsidize my shipping of books, but if there was no post office the freight would be much lower because it does not cost as much as the post office charges to deliver goods. Schools paid too much for too much so when you subsidize my on campus activity, you are paying for overhead that was never necessary to begin with.
The government merely arrogates unto itself at a very high cost, and putting the taxpayers on the hook, for all and sundry things. The state had much to do with the creation of the internet as we know it, and what a mess that is. 92% of traffic is spam, porn is force fed to 14 year old boys to the detriment of girls for generations, at a very high cost even if we pay nothing. Someone is paying.
In a free market the internet would be everyone bouncing messages off of any one of the millions of meteors coming at us each minute, with computer controlled probablity making communication impossible to snoop. Anyone can do it. Step one: get a FCC radio operators permit. How come? Literally the sky is the limit for this cheap and plentiful message distribution system. But you see, the state has hijacked it. Only they can use it. You see, the powers that be cannot possibly track who is saying what when your computer predicts the next thousand meteors and catches one to send your message. No way to snoop on that.
If you use this safe, secure, costless unlimited means to send messages without permission, expect drones.
Sure Michael Phelps and Bill Gates never built anything others did not pay for. That is not the question. The question is how come so many people are forbidden to contribute to society?
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment