License? We Don't Need No Stinking License!

Kevin Lacy, a stupid bureaucrat who is the chief traffic engineer for the state of North Carolina, lodged a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors because a computer scientist sent him a justification for installing traffic lights in his neighborhood.

Lacy claims the presentation was so well put together it rises to the level of engineering and it was done without a license. Keep in mind here that the guy who put together the report does not even claim to be an engineer. David Cox, who wrote the proposal is claiming that Lacy is just trying to stifle dissent (which seems evident).

The licensing board has promised to look in to the allegation but said that the worst likely outcome for Mr. Cox would be a letter telling him not to do it again. Practicing engineering without a license is a misdemeanor in North Carolina. Cox is not employed by anyone as an engineer and had no power to implement his plan on his own; how could he possibly be guilty of anything?

This brings up the larger question of why the state should require professional licenses. Is it necessary? Switching to California, there are 44 different categories of licensing with different types of licenses in some of those categories just by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Other agencies handle other types of licenses ranging from real estate to to legal stuff. Potentially there are several hundred professions that require licensing (including their specialties) in California.

Why, for example are hair dressers required to have a license by the state? The answer is simple. It limits competition. There can be no other reason for it. Anyone can cut hair. I've even cut my own hair. Sure, it takes some training, practice and skill but so does any profession. Simply put, because only licensed cosmetologists can cut hair, it drives up the price by limiting competition because not everyone who can cut hair has the resources or desire to spend 1600 hours (200 days of 8 hours each) in the classroom just so they can cut hair for a living (or a hobby). Let's say you really like the idea of cutting hair part time to supplement your income. Are you going to spend about a year of your life in class to do it? Probably not.

So let's say we can agree that hair dressers don't really need licenses. What about doctors? I don't think they need a state license either. WHAT?! If doctors don't have licenses, we're going to have a bunch of quacks out there practicing medicine and people will DIE! I can hear the arguments already. Personally, I would not go see a doctor who did not have medical training. But I would much rather rely on a private certification agency to determine that my doctor is well trained and does not have too many complaints against him. There could even be several competing private certification boards. These boards could publish their qualification criteria as well as complaints lodged against their members. The public, via the web, could also have a place to complain about doctors that was independent of those agencies.

I see no advantage the state could possibly have over one or more private certification boards. Hospitals could (and would) refuse to hire people who were not certified by one of the boards. In fact, they might be inclined to only hire doctors certified by one board over the other because they might have different standards in different areas. Specialists could have their own boards as well if they liked.

So what happens if someone wants to practice medicine without belonging to one of these boards? I've probably violated rules against practicing medicine. I've taken out stitches, I've pulled out slivers, I've treated colds, flu, etc. I've even performed what could be termed minor surgeries. And if I messed up? Well, I suppose there is always the risk of infections or other complications. But I wasn't taking out a spleen or anything like that. But so what if I did? If someone trusted me enough to take out a spleen and I represented that I could perform that action then it's just like any other economic transaction between two parties. If I lie about being certified or it turns out I misrepresented my qualifications there are already legal remedies for that. No state licensing board is necessary.

Anyway, it's not as if state licensing has even come close to eliminating misconduct, malpractice, fraud, stupidity or even simple mistakes from the medical or other professions.

The only reason for government based licenses is that governments like to have control and other people in various professions want to artificially limit competition.

Treating Them Like Children

More proof that the democrats see much of their constituency as children.

High-ranking House Democrats are urging the Treasury Department to prop up minority-owned broadcasters suffering from a lack of capital and lost advertising revenue amid the economic slump.

To the liberal-left elite, minorities, women and any other group except white males are to be treated by children who cannot make their own way and require government help. If broadcasters are failing, they're failing. Why should the taxpayers provide money to a PRIVATE BUSINESS that isn't generating enough revenue to continue operations. I don't care who owns the business, there is simply no Constitutional authority for the government to keep any business from failing.

Oh.. I amend my statement above. White, male bankers and automotive executives are also children.

Obamanomics - Failure Is The ONLY Option

Sorry I haven't blogged in a while... sometimes I just lose my muse for a while.

This stimulus is very troubling to say the least. The only thing really up for negotiation is the rate at which we're going to throw American taxpayers under the bus.

Unfortunately, NO STIMULUS package isn't an options because politicians have to DO SOMETHING when there is a crisis.

I've seen some Republicans claiming that being shut out of this process so the inevitable failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats and of course Hussein Obama. I don't think this will be the boon for Republicans they think it will be. For starters, the Dems have a much better spin machine than the Republicans so they will gesture wildly toward what seems like success and completely down play any failure. Even worse, they'll find a way to blame the failures on a lack of Republican cooperation. There is an even darker side to the failure. If Republican win in a landslide next election, they'll be so drunk with power, they will simply enact their versions of more government, more spending, more stimulus but in a "conservative way." They will show the people how to properly get this country moving again with a completely different set of spending bills, etc. They probably will not understand that the best thing for this country is to get the Fed OUT of our way, let the market take care of all the bad debt, etc. and the pain will be over quicker.

Prediction... Republicans will win in mid-term elections rivaling the Contract With America (*not that I think this is a good thing).

Now That It's Over

Well, it might not be over; there are still concerns about Obama's citizenship. That could be a real Constitutional crisis. Barring that though, it's pretty much a done deal.

Now what? Well, for one thing, I think this is a repudiation of Bush and his false conservatism which McCain goes along with except that McCain is even more liberal. Maybe now, the GOP will start putting more Reagan like candidates up there. More conservative. Obviously when the GOP runs a liberal, the country moves to the left.

Really though, we're getting the President we deserve. We're getting more liberalism, lots of scandals, more government interference in our lives, more government interference in the markets and in general, a lot less freedom. Make no mistake, we'd have these things with McCain too (except maybe the scandals) but lots more government and a lot less liberty.

We can look for things like an attempt at The Fairness Doctrine being restored, possibly slavery reparations, a civilian national security force (i.e. neighborhood spies) national health care, more money poured down the black hole of education, etc. The list goes on and on and on.

We did it ourselves.

Catching Wild Pigs

I rarely post stuff that was just forwarded to me in email, but this one caught my attention. I wish I would have written it myself.

There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Prof. noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot in his native country while fighting communists who were trying to overthrow the government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said: 'This isn't a joke. You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn.
When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves they accept their captivity.'

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco
subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! A politician will never provide a service for you that is ultimately more in your best interest than if you had accomplished it yourself, for yourself.

So, if you come to view all of this wonderful government help as a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to tell your friends. If you think the free ride is what those historical figures who founded this nation saw as our destiny, you will likely delete this, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you. It's just possible you may be able to figure out who is about to slam the gate on those within the political fences of America.

Think about this very carefully -- as Thomas Jefferson said a very long time ago, 'A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.'

My Prediction Is Holding

The DOW is, as of this writing, up just over 1000 points from its Monday close. I expect things to be relatively flat this coming Monday. Trading volume will be low the before and the day of the election, especially in these otherwise turbulent times. Any announcements from the Whitehouse should be taken as purely partisan and intended to help McCain.

A side note, the DOW has fallen just over 4600 from a close of 13,930 one year ago today.

Obama as President would be both scary and highly entertaining. McCain as President will be less obviously scary but still very destructive to the basic principles of liberty so many of us hold dear. It will also be a continuation of big government neo-con thinking that currently dominates the Republican party despite the ire of their sheep like constituents who continue to vote for them because they're too afraid to abandon a party that refuses to be reformed.

We're screwed either way. Hang on folks! It's going to be a bumpy ride!

Was Jesus A Socialist?

This question seems to be on the minds of many as of late. As many 43 of my last 100 blog visits (at the time of this writing) were from people searching some variant of "Was Jesus a socialist?" That led them to something I posted in August of 2005 on this very topic.

Since it seems to be so interesting, let's cover the topic again.

Was Jesus a socialist? YES! Give money to the poor, take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, love your neighbor, etc. There was some communal living mentioned in the New Testament as well.

I've heard people use Jesus' example to justify government socialism. Ohhhh, we have to take care of the poor, the hurting, the sick, etc. It's our CHRISTIAN DUTY! But they've got it all wrong. The socialism that was advocated by Jesus and the apostles was always VOLUNTARY.

Give from your heart or God doesn't honor it all all. The giving that Jesus advocated was never to be done by force which is the only way that government does things.

Those of you reading this that want to use a Biblical example to justify more government in our lives in the name of Christian charity (my regular readers know better) just stop and think for a moment and go read your Bible and see what it really says.

Where Are The Speculators Now?

Speculators were blamed for the housing bubble, the oil bubble, and, if you recall, the dot com bubble.

During the dot com boom, people invested in those stocks and retail traders jumped in to the market with both feet. Yes, that means you! Those people who opened up ETrade accounts and had no idea what they were doing but thought it was a good idea to start buying stocks. It was pure speculation and not based on any sound fundamentals. The transaction prices dropped significantly when trading started taking place on the internet. And eventually, that bubble burst.

After that, we had the housing boom. Oh, the glory days for property owners. Properties were being listed and offers would be submitted within hours. It was a buying frenzy. People would buy houses and turn around and sell them within weeks or even days at significant profit. Speculators once again were blamed for driving prices up to unrealistic levels. As it happens in all bubbles, it burst.

Then we had the oil boom. When oil hit the $100/barrel mark we thought it couldn't go much higher, but it did. $110! $120! $130! Finally it hit the ceiling at $147.25. Then, lo and behold, the bubble burst.

Today, despite the fact that OPEC has promised to cut production, the price of oil dropped.

Where are the speculators now? If the speculators really have as much power as the media and people like Greenspan and Bernanke say they do, the bubbles would not burst so quickly and prices would not fall so fast.

In reality, speculative buyers in any market must have speculative sellers. A seller sells because he believes that something he's holding will go down in value if he continues to hold it. Speculative buyers think it's going to continue to go up. Without willing sellers, speculators would have nothing to buy so why do we blame the speculators?

The oil speculators have no power to keep prices up. They are not sitting in huge conference rooms together figuring out how to keep prices rising. They are individuals, fund managers, etc. who are riding a wave of market emotion and trying to make a profit.

When market bubbles burst, someone is losing money. But who? Usually it's the people who got in to the frenzy closest to the end.

The oil bubble burst because we're entering a global recession and demand is falling rapidly. The speculators are shorting oil futures. Fine. They see the hand writing on the wall. But they're selling short to people who believe that oil will go back up. Again, there are two sides to a transaction but we only blame half of those responsible.

Some other time, I'll get in to the Keynsian boom/bust cycle and how it could be avoided.

What A Wonderful Bailout!

Wow, the Feds were RIGHT! This bailout is solving all of our problems with market stability! Hey, just because the DOW is down over 400 points TODAY and London is having a really bad day too doesn't mean ANYTHING at all. The Feds did the right thing. They are smarter than us you know.

The American people were just dead wrong about the bailout. We have achieved the "market stability" that Bush and Pelosi pushed through and that McCain and Obama both agreed with.

Aren't you glad that American is safe in the hands of these people?

On the bright side, there are a lot of politicians right now cowering in fear in dark corners of their offices shaking at the prospect of getting booted out of office as their phones are ringing off the hooks as angry Americans call them screaming, "What the hell have you done to my country? I told you this was a bad idea!"

Down If They Do! Down If They Don't!

The DOW took a hit of almost 350 points today over fears that the proposed bailout plan won't be enough to stop a recession.

To why try to pass another socialist bailout plan then? Anyone who voted yes for this will be targeted for elimination in the next election. They defied their constituency. It will be a lightening rod issue for years to come.

Stock Market Down - Dollar UP

The stock market took a huge hit yesterday and lots of people are screaming about it but they dollar is up almost 6 cents against the Euro since Sunday evening. That's a significant jump.

A stronger dollar is much better for this country than a falling stock market.

Oil fell on news of the bailout failure but has rebounded a bit.

We need to just let it be and not force a bailout through Congress. We'll endure the pain and recover. Not only will we recover faster, the rest of the world will too.

The Fed might be eying a rate cut to get things going. That will drop the dollar unfortunately. I know it's tough when business can't get credit lines to stay to stay afloat but we rely on credit too much as it is which is why we have a negative saving rate in this country.

Doing nothing will also cool demand for oil even further for a while as we enter in to a short term recession which will drive oil prices down even lower during the tough times to come.

The least harm Congress can do now is nothing. Let's just hope Bush doesn't declare a national emergency and sign an executive order and force the bailout over the objections of Congress.

Where Is The Conspiracy Now?

Oil prices are falling...falling...falling.

Where is the conspiracy? Who's to blame? If the oil market were really so tightly controlled, prices would stabilize high or continue to rise, not plummet from the peak of $147 to below $120 in just a few months.

There were sheiks and investors, etc. saying the hikes would continue, that it's not a bubble. So who's really controlling the market? It's just the market!

Will we return to $1/gallon gas any time soon? No. $2/gallon? Possibly. But I suspect gas will be under $3/gallon by the end of this year.

The recession is catching up, the world economy is weak, demand is being driven down and oil is falling with it. The dollar is rising at the moment which further drives down the price of oil and that should continue for a while.

Stay Tuned!

Why Would They?

The Secretary General of the United Nations is criticizing the wealthy OPEC countries for not giving enough money to the U.N.'s World Food Program.

First of all, why would Muslim countries give a ton of money to an organization they consider under the control of the infidel? Do you really think the OPEC nations are part of the U.N. because they agree with the overall mission of that organization? No, it's purely political. In fact, I'd guess that those countries have a more realistic view of the U.N. than our own government. We've managed to trick ourselves in to believing that it's a useful and necessary organization.

My second point doesn't have so much to do with the OPEC nations but why should the U.N. or any other governmental authority be in charge of solving the world food crisis. ESPECIALLY given the fact that any prolonged food crises we have is purely political in nature. The abuses and mismanagement by the U.N. are well documented and utterly appaling. Then we want to put them in charge of solving a fake food crises they helped create?

The idea that governments need to take money from its own citizens and send it to citizens of other countries is ludicrous on its face. I'm all for individuals giving of their own volition. In fact, American's are the most charitable people on the face of the Earth! We don't need the government to tell us to help other nations in trouble. Besides that, when governments help other governments, there are always strings attached. The junta regime in Burma is rightly (in a political sense only) rejecting most of the help from the U.N. and especially the United States.

Let's get out of the UN altogether.

***UPDATE***

I just had an additional thought on the subject. When money is taken from taxpayers and used to buy food that would not otherwise have been purchased by the market, it drives prices up. This is because the surplus that would exist without the government purchases would have been sold at a cheaper price because demand would have been down. Therefore, this stupid U.N. organization to solve the world hunger crisis once again, only makes things worse.

The Fossil Fuel Myth

This may be a startling new revelation for some of you. What I'm about to tell you isn't a new theory, I've heard bits and pieces of it for years and I've never really dug in to it too deeply.

The oil we've been sucking out of the ground for the past 100 years* is not the result of millions of millions of years of compressing dinosaurs and plants. I've always been suspicious of that theory anyway, even as a kid. How could there possibly have been enough biological (organic) material gathered in one place to produce the vast oil fields we have today? It's simple, there isn't.

While it's certainly possible that some fraction of the oil we pull out of the earth was generated this way, almost all of our oil is produced abiotically; meaning without a biological component.

The implications of this are quite staggering. First of all, it means that oil truly is a renewable resource if the earth is producing it of its own accord without regard to massive input of organic compounds.

Secondly, it means the doom-sayers should (but won't) shut up about running out of oil. It's been predicted for many years that we'd run out of oil in 10 years. That's ludicrous. There are vast reserves of oil right here in the US that remain untapped because of the ecofreaks.

We are NOT running out of oil, not even close. Granted some of it may be more expensive to access than previous reserves have been but it's not impossible or even impractical to do so. If it would truly end our dependence on foreign oil, I'd actually tolerate higher gas prices than we have now if we were in control of our own production, refining and distribution of oil and gas products.

If you'd like to do more research on this subject, start with this Google search.

Next time someone refers to petroleum as a fossil fuel, please take that opportunity to disabuse them of that fallacy.

*I understand that the use of oil has been around FAR longer but it wasn't until the rise of the industrial revolution that we began our efforts in earnest.

Ron Paul Silences Bernanke

This is really, truly awesome. Ron Paul grills Fed Chief Ben Bernanke about inflation and devaluing the dollar.

Bernanke's first two responses are to lie, dissemble and distort. Dr. Paul didn't flinch. The final response by Bernanke (or lack thereof) says more than he ever could by opening his big fat mouth.

This nearly brought me to tears. The very prospect that we COULD end up with a president that actually has a deep and abiding comprehension of economics gives me some hope for this country.

We're So Much Safer Now

Yes folks, we have verifiable evidence that more government has made us more secure.

Ok, you're laughing and rightfully so because the statement above is purely a work of fiction. The fact of the matter is, we're not safer now, we're far from it. USA Today published an article that says that airport screeners missed 75% of fake bombs at LAX and 60% at O'Hare.

**TERRORIST INSTRUCTION ALERT**
If terrorists decided to send 10 guys with one bomb each on 10 different place going from LAX 7 out of 10 of them would succeed in getting aboard the plane with the bomb.
**END TERRORIST INSTRUCTION ALERT**

The fact is, we're not safer and the government (any government) is incapable of making us safer from anything but an invading enemy hoard (even that is questionable at times). After 9/11, the TSA took over airport screening duties. Obviously they had to hire a lot of existing screeners from the private companies who ran them. I haven't done any research but I imagine more than a few security companies went out of business because the government essentially stole their businesses from them.

The article says that in the late 1990, screeners only missed about 40% of fake bombs. Certainly the technology available to the general public to make bombs has improved, the ability to screen for bombs has improved too so we should be seeing at least some consistency in that number. But no, when you work for the government your ability to perform does not increase. You are more hampered by bureaucracy (or bureaucrazy as Nelly called it once) when you work for the government. Walk in to any government office and see what a model of efficiency, innovation and pure joy it is. Could you expect anything more from government security screeners? If it's really a matter of national security, why not use military? They tend to have more of a sense of dedication than the typical government worker.

Let's put airport security back in the hands of the airlines where it belongs. They have a responsibility to keep their passengers safe. Their livelihood depends on it so let them do it. Let them compete for a "Safest Airline" award by some private entity.

Let's get rid of every other Federal agency and let the market fill the need if there actually is one for the services it provides at our expense.

What? No Tears?

Thousands upon thousands of people are out of work due to the implosion of the mortgage industry. As of this writing 157 mortgage lenders have either gone out of business entirely or severely restricted operations.

Countrywide alone is laying off or has laid off 12,000 employees in just one round of cuts. In previous cuts it's laid of hundreds of others.

Washington Mutual is cutting about 1000 jobs nation wide.

BNC recently laid off 1200 employees.

I haven't done any sort of official count but I would guess there have been at least 100,000 mortgage jobs lost between lenders, brokers, loan originators, processors, title and escrow employees, etc. There are also an awful lot of real estate agents with a ton of listings on their books but no buyers. Lots of people in this industry are starving.

Usually when there are massive layoffs, there's a huge outcry about jobs being lost, etc., etc., blah, blah, boo-freaking-hoo! There's nary a peep about the mortgage jobs being lost by the thousands right now. Where are the usual voices crying out for help for these poor unfortunates that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own?

No one cares that mortgage people are now wandering the streets babbling to non-existent borrowers while pretending they still own a Blackberry and Bluetooth headset. Where's the love? Where's the compassion? More importantly, where are the Federal assistance programs?

The point is, these people will find other jobs. Unemployment is still low and the job market will adjust to absorb these additional workers. Some will move up, some will move down and some will find comparable wages. Some will start their own businesses and some just might end up homeless. How could our behemoth of a Federal government possibly be flexible enough to account for the different variables that go in to controlling the employment fallout from this or any other industry? Make-work jobs? That provides the wrong incentive. Cash payouts? Some would-be entrepreneurs might just cash those checks instead of creating businesses or go back to school for a different career or apply for more challenging jobs. And frankly, some of these people simply belong in lower paying, lower skilled jobs (**Full Disclosure** I work in the mortgage industry).

There could be another 100,000 jobs lost in this business before the bleeding stops and that's just fine. When the dot-com bubble burst lots of people that had no business in the IT world lost their jobs to attrition and overseas workers yet unemployment remained low. Those workers were absorbed back in to the labor demand pool then and the mortgage workers will get absorbed now. Next time you hear someone griping about layoffs, remind them of the IT and mortgage industry layoffs.

But I thought...

...the poor were getting poorer.

They're not, at least for now.

"The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent -- were living in poverty last year. That's down from 12.6 percent in 2005."

Poverty is defined by FedGov as income of $20,650 for a household of four. See their website for more info.

HHS is very ambiguous about how it calculates income for this guideline. It says the agencies using the guideline to determine services can use net or gross income. Let's be generous and say it's net income. Even a net income calculation wouldn't take in to consideration under the table income, Federal, state and local subsidies for food, housing, school lunches, disability payments, etc.

Despite the low levels of income, most of those families have televisions, computers, cell phones, cars and other items that would be considered luxuries in countries where poor is REALLY poor. While it's true that we do have SOME poverty in this country, poverty is not a permanent condition for most of the truly poor. Most poor people do not stay poor. With very few exceptions, people tend to progress upward in income. I'm not a mathematician but I'd be willing to bet that incomes rise significantly as people get older then drop off sharply after age 65. This is what happens in the normal course of life. What this means is that the people who were poor in 1997 are not likely to be the same group of people that are poor in 2007. The welfare proponents do NOT want you to understand this concept because it damages their credibility. If "the poor" are generally going to stop being poor on their own anyway, why do they need government assistance? The truth is, they don't. Oh sure, it's easy to make the case that lots of people need short term assistance but that's what private charity is supposed to be for. These permanent government programs create a class of dependent people that have a harder time breaking the poverty cycle than the poor that do not get on these programs.

I've been saying for years that I want the President to call a press conference and announce an end to all Federal assistance programs one year from the date of the announcement. Along with cutting those programs, we'll get a reduction in taxes equal to the amount (if that's possible) of the budgets these programs operated from. Furthermore, it would be declared that the income tax deduction limit on charitable giving would be raised by 100%.

What a boost to our entire economy this would be. Not just because of the reduction in costs from the services that were eliminated but it would essentially force most of the dependent class to go be more productive. Higher productivity generates a higher living standard for everyone. Many of these people, when forced out in to the work world will become entrepreneurs and employ other people. Others will fill jobs that cannot be filled right now. Some of those people will always have low paying jobs and remain poor. But there will be more charity available to assist them.

Charity does a much better job of figuring out what people need than government because they tend to specialize. A local charity is flexible and far more efficient than government programs because they have to answer to their benefactors for more funds so they tend to do their jobs. When a particular need changes, a charity can change with it. Not only that, private charity can and should be more restrictive with who they help which results in better allocation of resources. It's all to easy to scam the government and many believe they have the right to.

As for the rich getting richer... Have you seen the sub prime lending mess? Lots of rich people have become less rich. The last time I saw the list of Forbes most wealthy people a bunch of them dropped off the previous list and if I'm not mistaken, the net worth of the top people had all fallen. Doesn't mean they're headed for the bread line, but it doesn't mean that the rich always get richer and the poor always get poorer. The people these groups represent are in constant flux.

Missing The Point

Sacha Sagan of PC Magazine misses the point entirely when it comes to the government and free markets.

In what seems like an otherwise innocuous article about advanced cell phone capabilities in Europe, Sagan opines:

But I can't help thinking that our carriers' locked-down thinking on mobile applications needs to be opened up with a government crowbar.

If the market can't provide sufficient competition on its own, let's goose it, so a new market of mobile applications and Web services can truly take off.

Sagan doesn't seem to understand that as soon as American consumers demand the services currently in use in Europe and elsewhere, that those companies will provide them. Perhaps the wireless providers can be forced to offer certain applications but consumers cannot be forced to use or pay for them.

People just don't think. If the government can demand that company X provides a product or service, especially something like wireless phone service then we have ceased to have a free market at all. Whatever innovation and autonomy remains is simply because the government has not yet taken an interest. Maybe we should force BestBuy to sell circuit boards and diodes so consumers can build their own electronics and have more real choices. Maybe we should force Starbucks to start serving full meals because consumers have to make a separate stop for food. I'm sure if Starbucks started serving meals people would buy them. We need government regulation to force Starbucks to provide what consumers really want!

This isn't really about mobile applications, it's about the mentality that the government should intervene when we aren't happy with the choices presented to us. The government is simply not capable of being an innovator or forcing innovation. The first thing that someone will point to will be the break of up the phone company in to Baby Bells. It was government regulations to begin with that prevented competition from getting a foothold in the first place. Look at what VoIP service such as Vonage and Skype is doing to the traditional land line market! No government regulations were necessary to create that market. Regulation could halt it though. It's big, established companies that have a long and proud history of using government to stifle their competition.

A smaller government with few, but well established laws prevent big companies from limiting their competition through lobbying for various laws and regulations. Sure, those companies will whine and complain about the cost of regulation compliance but they know those same costs are what keep the competition away and leave consumers with fewer choices.

More government is NEVER the answer when it comes to what the market offers consumers. It's a lesson I hope Sacha Sagan learns soon.

The End of Chavez

Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, friend of Fidel Castro and enemy of all that is good and right in the world has been granted very broad dictatorial powers by the National Assembly (their Congress).

From the article:

Chavez, a former paratroop commander who easily won re-election in December, has said he will use the law to decree nationalizations of Venezuela's largest telecommunications company and the electricity sector, slap new taxes on the rich and impose greater state control over the oil and natural gas industries.

The law also allows Chavez to dictate unspecified measures to transform state institutions; reform banking, tax, insurance and financial regulations; decide on security and defense matters such as gun regulations and military organization; and "adapt" legislation to ensure "the equal distribution of wealth" as part of a new "social and economic model."

Chavez plans to reorganize regional territories and carry out reforms aimed at bringing "power to the people" through thousands of newly formed Communal Councils, in which Venezuelans will have a say on spending an increasing flow of state money on neighborhood projects from public housing to road repaving.

What Chavez is going to do will so thoroughly and completely destroy that country that the people will be begging America to come down and take over the oil fields and make the country productive again. Hopefully this will be short term pain for long term gain.

Our Congress should immediately cut off any foreign aid to Venezuela, all humanitarian relief, etc. Let them stew in what they have created. It won't take long before Chavez is crying to the United Nations that his country deserves a fair share of the wealth of the world and goes begging for funds.

The nationalization of important industries always reduces productivity; nearly eliminates innovation, causes prices to rise and supporting industries to fail. When you remove incentives to produce, that's exactly what happens. That's why a Socialist Paradise will never exist. You have to let the producers produce. It keeps the non-producers employed, fed, housed, etc. Let the producers get rich, it helps everyone.